This user has pending changes reviewer rights on the English Wikipedia.
This user has rollback rights on the English Wikipedia.
This user uses Twinkle to fight vandalism.

User talk:Boomer Vial

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

If you feel that I have reverted an edit or issued a warning in error, please let me know. I am human, and I do make mistakes. Please don't interpret an error on my part as a personal attack on you. It's not, I promise. I ask you to simply bring it to my attention; I am always open to civil discussion. Thank you. Boomer VialHolla! We gonna ball!
If I see something such as a box, template, image, etc., on another user/user talk page that catches my eye, I will "borrow" it. More than likely without asking. ;) Boomer VialHolla! We gonna ball!

WikiLove, barnstars, and more!

talk page notice (fyi)[edit]

Hi, you left this notice on an IP user's talk page. I don't know if you added it manually or if this is a problem with twinkle, but the template was incomplete and you can see the result. I'll leave this to you to sort out. Cheers - theWOLFchild 00:01, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

theWOLFchild Whoops. No, I manually add warnings after using the autmated Twinkle welcoming template. I missed part of the code, there. Thanks for letting me know. Boomer VialBe ready to fight the horde!Contribs 04:27, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

SwisterTwister was the sock[edit]

I was looking at SwisterTwister's ANI history to see why s/he got blocked, and came across this old thread where you kept calling me a sock. I'm the 96.xx IP. This really points out why I object to people calling others, especially IP's, sockpuppets without evidence. In the end it was SwisterTwister who was sockpuppeting, albeit temporarily. (talk) 05:02, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm not going through this with you again. We don't even know definitively if the "sock" involved in that archived case was even Swister. You suggesting so with no evidence is an insult to Swister, as wrong as they were for socking in this instance. Even worse it's hypocritical. Bringing something up from ages ago just so you can go "Aha! I was right", especially with no evidence, hardly says anything about your innocence in the archived matter. In fact, it makes you look more suspicious. Boomer VialBe ready to fight the horde!Contribs 21:48, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

User name[edit]

Hello BV. I saw your post at AN/I. Had those usernames been created last month they might have been a tribute to this song from one of the 3,254 versions of Dickens tale :-) Enjoy the rest of your weekend. MarnetteD|Talk 23:00, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

MarnetteD I wouldn't be surprised if it was just that. You as well. :) Boomer VialBe ready to fight the horde!Contribs 02:11, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Insertion of BLP violations[edit]

Here you reverted the removal of a flagrant BLP violation, with the edit summary "Rvt; not a valid explanation for removal of sourced content." Except that the offending content was not sourced (and it's highly, highly questionable whether it would have been suitable for inclusion even if it was). Please be more careful about this sort of thing in the future. Steve Smith (talk) 00:50, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Inquiry from a Public Relations Representative for Biogen on Updating Wikipedia Article[edit]


My name is Matt Nemet and I am a Public Relations professional at GCI Health, a firm specializing in healthcare. One of our clients, Biogen, has expressed concern regarding outdated information found on the Wikipedia page for its multiple sclerosis treatment candidate, Opicinumab.

We understand that Wikipedia readers depend on active and thoughtful editors for accurate and supported articles. Additionally, we felt that given your previous efforts editing Wikipedia pages like Opicinumab you might be interested in reviewing this page through the lens of updating older information.

To further disclose our position, we are aware that per Wikipedia’s guidelines neither the company nor the company’s representatives can make direct edits to Wikipedia pages. Respecting these rules, our priority is ensuring that this issue is appropriately brought to light. Therefore, we are engaging you, an experienced editor who can be trusted with assessing the current state of the page against publicly available information on Biogen and Opicinumab to make accurate and appropriate updates.

Please let me know if you have any questions.

Best regards, MSN2017 (talk) 20:12, 3 October 2018 (UTC)