User talk:Boomer Vial

Please place new discussions at the bottom of the talk page.

This is Boomer Vial's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7: 7 days

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 Vial^{Holla! 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 Vial^{Holla! We gonna ball!}

WikiLove, barnstars, and more!

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

Hello,

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 One of our clients, Biogen, has expressed concern regarding outdated information found on the Wikipedia page for its multiple sclerosis treatment candidate, Opicinumab.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)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Boomer Vial. 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)[reply]

Is there an explanation for this edit?

Do you have any explanation for this highly-inappropriate edit, or should we be considering taking action such as a topic ban from gender-related topics? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:38, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

NorthbySouthBaranof I reverted it after I did it, lmfao. What absolute Nazism that you threaten to ban me for vandalizing an article one time, and proceeded to revert said vandalism. Wikipedia has become a joke. The true proprietary of fake news. Boomer Vial^{Be ready to fight the horde! • Contribs} 00:47, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, revoking talk page access because this account has clearly been compromised. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:48, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

Your account has been blocked indefinitely because it is suspected that it has been compromised. If your account is locked, please contact trustandsafety

wikimedia.org. Otherwise, if you are able to confirm that you are the user who created this account, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section), then add this below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=your reason here ~~~~}}.

Template:Z12

I just don't see a user who was extremely active in reverting vandalism and this sort of stuff going on to vandalize an article this way. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:55, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ian.thomson Wrong. I see since the accusation of my account being compromised didn't stick, you've moved on to baseless accusations that I'm a sock. Just stop. You're embarrassing yourselves. Boomer Vial^{Be ready to fight the horde! • Contribs} 01:58, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked, but not for account compromise

CheckUser indicates that there was no compromise on this account and that this is not the first time you have vandalized Wikipedia. Your block as a compromised account has been converted to a CheckUser block. If you wish to appeal, follow the instructions at WP:GAB. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:53, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

TonyBallioni Stop lying. That's not me, and you have zero evidence that it is. Oh, let me guess? We're just supposed to take your word for it because you're an admin? How sad. I will not be appealing, as I've already denounced Wikipedia. It's just nice to see you admins being exposed for the frauds you are, and watching you scramble to come up with an excuse as to why I was banned. LOL. Boomer Vial^{Be ready to fight the horde! • Contribs} 01:55, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen the evidence and Tony isn't lying. I have placed the evidence where other checkusers can see it here just in case it comes up again.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 04:04, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

BereanHunter Oh, but how coincidental that I'm not allowed to see this supposed evidence which you back myself. How convenient for those laying down the accusations. If there is actual proof, which there isn't, why can't I see it? Why is there zero mention of which account I'm a supposedly a sock of? How come to conversation went from 'Compromised", to "CheckUser blocked" when I replied to my talk page? Nothing here adds up, except for the fact that I'm no longer interested in upholding ypur narrative, so you therefore blocked me from editing.

I don't understand how you cannot see this. Of course you wouldn't, though. It's more important to protect the cabal of administrators, isn't it?

How sad. I, again, don't want to come back. The attitude and self-protection displayed by yourself, as well as other administrators is why. Thank you for accusing me of something completely false, ans changing your story in the face of vandalizing a single article (which I myself reverted). Boomer Vial^{Be ready to fight the horde! • Contribs} 18:20, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

BereanHunter [1] Busted. Boomer Vial^{Be ready to fight the horde! • Contribs} 18:30, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A check was run because a steward was considering locking this account as compromised. They usually ask a local CheckUser to confirm before they do so. When I ran the check, it indicated that your account has always been operated by you. It also indicated that you have vandalized this project on multiple occassions. After you denied this, I asked for independent review by another CheckUser. Berean Hunter reviewed your block at my request, and well, you’re still blocked. You can’t see the evidence as we do not publicly connect accounts and their technical data. Also, no clue how he’s “busted”: he’s agreeing with my conclusion. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:33, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)::::"It indicated that you vandalized Wikipedia multiple times." Changing the story, again, I see. First it was 'compromised', then it was 'checkuser blocked' (including zero evidence of which account I am supposedly a sock of), and now it's 'Oh, you vandalized Wikipedia multiple times'. So, where is the evidence in my contribution history, if that's the case? [[2]] Stop embarrassing yourself, Tony. We both know what was meant by that is, "He's no longer buying into the narrative. Time to ban, and make a reason why this done." Boomer Vial^{Be ready to fight the horde! • Contribs} 18:41, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]