This is an archive of past discussions with User:Boomer Vial. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
There are some trusted resources about Xiongnu page which I try to revert, but user named Kansas Bear, keeps changing it without addressing the substance of argument, only explanation he makes is some socks did this edits, so what ? Just because some socks did the same editing are we going to ignore resources from Harvard University Press and U of Bristol.
@130.88.99.233: I hear what your saying. However, the references you provided didn't work out as hoped. They redirected me to another edit on my talk page. While I'm perusing the policies concerning sockpuppetry so I can find you an answer, could you repair those links for me so I can see the references in question. Much regards. Boomer VialHolla06:22, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
I redact the above stuck statement, as I can see the correct references now. I'll still look through the sockpuppet policies for an answer, however. Boomer VialHolla06:24, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
Can I get some help with an answer on the above question posted by 130.88.99.223? A possible sockpuppet has been adding references to Xiongnu article, which have subsequently been removed by User:Kansas Bear. Is there a policy that allows the removal of contributions by blocked sockpuppets? Boomer VialHolla06:40, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
After a cursory examination of the edit history of the Xiongnu article, I see IP(130.X.X.X) edit warring their opinion into the article vs numerous other editors. I have left the sources, fixed the references causing error codes and removed the undue weight given to one theory.[1] IF the IP(s) want to make changes, I would suggest they take their concerns to the talk page and refrain from racist remarks.[2][3][4] --Kansas Bear (talk) 06:59, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
@Kansas Bear: The IP editor has already approached another editor (User:Oshwah) concerning the edits, who accepted the edit based on the fact that they are not problematic, or controversial[5]. Oshwah also warned the IP about their edit summaries, to which the apologized. If you have any diffs of 130.88.99.223 abusing multiple accounts, I'd advise you to file an sockpuppet investigation. Boomer VialHolla07:05, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
Spare me the song and dance. When the IPs geolocate back to the same place;
IP: 130.88.99.219
Decimal: 2186830811
Hostname: aruba-ctlr3-nat.its.manchester.ac.uk
ASN: 786
ISP: The University of Manchester
Organization: Jisc Services Limited
IP: 130.88.99.223
Decimal: 2186830815
Hostname: aruba-ctlr7-nat.its.manchester.ac.uk
ASN: 786
ISP: The University of Manchester
Organization: Jisc Services Limited
I do not need an SPI. If the IP wants to continue their racist comments, personal attacks and edit warring, I am more than willing to notify an Admin.
Actually, the categories that were added ARE controversial and should be discussed on the talk page.
130.88.99.219, 6 reverts on Xiongnu
130.88.99.223, 3 reverts on Xiongnu
Looks like edit warring to me. It has been suggested this IP range is similar to blocked user:Yakbul. --Kansas Bear (talk) 07:26, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
@Kansas Bear: Spare me the attitude. You made accusations of sockpuppetry with no diffs or basis. What did you expect? You are correct that this is an obvious sock. The IP editor has apologized for their edit summaries, so how about we just walk away? If they continue their tendentious editing, feel free to report them. Boomer VialHolla07:30, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
And the edits made by this IP, are a continuation of user:Yakbul:
IP: 130.88.99.230
Decimal:2186830822
Hostname:aruba-ctlr14-nat.its.manchester.ac.uk
ASN: 786
ISP:The University of Manchester
Organization: Jisc Services Limited
Which means the other IPs listed are user:Yakbul and his continuing anti-Persian, pro-Turkish nonsense.
"You made accusations of sockpuppetry with no diffs or basis."
Have you not checked the edit history of the Xiongnu article? You don't know how to click on a link at the bottom of a contribution page?
"The IP editor has apologized for their edit summaries."
@Kansas Bear: Feel free to file an SPI if it bothers you that much. Also, here[6] is their apology, if it means anything. They obviously apologized to the wrong person, but it's never wrong to ask for one yourself, as well as assume good faith here. "You don't know how to click on a link at the bottom of a contribution page?" Why is it so hard for you not to have an attitude? I literally said "This is an obvious sock" and "If they continue their tendentious editing, feel free to report them." Let's just leave it at that, and move on please. Boomer VialHolla07:58, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
Dear Kansas Bear, I am inviting you to the talk page, i do believe that your edits about Xiongnu has some bad intentions, if you don't have, please feel free to discuss with me about the edits I'm making, on the talk page[7].Also, as you can see from my IP,i am connecting from a University which is in the top 50 th on the world, not from a neighboorhood in a small town.--130.88.99.223 (talk) 11:45, 2 March 2016 (UTC) --Defenderofthruth (talk) 13:05, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
There was no edit summary provided, which is why I reverted, just to clear. Also, your removing of the section about possible homosexuality is in violation of WP:NPOV. Just because you don't agree with it, does not mean it will not be included in the article. Wikipedia is not founded upon the few who WP:OWN the article, but upon WP:CONSENSUS. Boomer VialHolla00:30, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello, you recently re-restored the changes I made to the Strikeforce: Shamrock vs. Gracie page. Although not detailed, I did leave an edit summary saying "Non factual edit deleted". The section I deleted from the article looks like the fight card of another event completely unrelated to Strikeforce: Shamrock vs. Gracie. With a little more research it is easy to see this event 'Unity 1' did not take place and is fictitious warranting a deletion from the page. The user who questioned the edit before you realized this which is I made the changes again. These changes have since been re-done by another user with a more descriptive summary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.106.66.65 (talk) 15:22, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
Hi, as a newbie user, i don't want to get involved in a edit war. Can you please help me about Xiongnu ?If you can take a look at edit history and explanations, you will understand the situation. I need your help and your warnings too in case I'm doing something wrong. --Defenderofthruth (talk) 19:26, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
This isn't fair. I tried to rewrite a part of the page and then 忍者ポップ appears and reverts me without explaining. And he removed all of my messages I sent him asking him why. I did not vandalize. And I did not mean to edit war. 忍者ポップ just showed up and began the reverts and is not saying why he did it.--2601:140:8200:DE:CC43:A3F3:6D4A:5BDC (talk) 04:43, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
@忍者ポップ: I just want to apologize about reverting your edits, and labeling them as a 3RR violation. Obviously that revert was directed at the IP editor.
(edit conflict)It doesn't appear that this editor speaks fluent English. Or at least enough to contribute to Wikipedia. As for you, User:2601:140:8200:DE:CC43:A3F3:6D4A:5BDC, being right does not grant you a free pass to violate 3RR how ever much you please. Please take this to the talk page with the original editor that added the disputed content. Not the editor that is currently reversing your edits. If I see you reverting again, I will report you to WP:AN3, and you will be blocked. Boomer VialHolla04:56, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
All that happened was I rewrote that section, Apokryltaros added the Japanese terms back, and I removed them for all the reasons I explained. I didn't mean to edit war over them but 忍者ポップ (Google says this means "Ninja Pop") reverted me without giving a reason why, even though I told him why on his user talk page like I showed you. I really didn't mean for all of this to happen and I'm sorry it did. I just wanted to make the page better.--2601:140:8200:DE:CC43:A3F3:6D4A:5BDC (talk) 05:00, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
@2601:140:8200:DE:CC43:A3F3:6D4A:5BDC: Indeed it is, but a contributor leaving confusing edit summaries that make little sense tends to exacerbate the matter. I've left a comment on Gilliam's talk page explaining how 'Ninja Pop' is not contributing in a constructive manner. Boomer VialHolla05:22, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Speedway Motors
Cakulig has validly complained about the speed[wa]y tag you applied draft:Speedway Motors. When I checked while the page was deleted, the alleged copyvio source was showing something totally different. Now it is back! The number 7076… in the URL gives us a clue: the apparent copyvio source is actually a scraping in real time of this diff report. I am not quite sure what game polskibreivik.pl is playing - I think it may be trying to create a smokescreen to fool Google that it is legit rather than what it really is: a porn site. Certainly any apparent copyvios you find on the site will be the reverse, ie. copyvios from Wikipedia. — RHaworth (talk·contribs) 18:20, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
@RHaworth: My apologies to User:Cakulig. When I ran your article through Copyvios, i thought it came back as a 95% chance of a violation (it's reall only a 33% match), which is why I marked it G12 under speedy deletion policy. It might have been another article I was looking at however, and I think I mistaked it for your (Draft:Speedway Motors) article. Boomer VialHolla20:24, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:Antonia Vai
Hello, you deleted a draft page I wrote: "This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://wiki.polskibreivik.pl/page_Special:Diff/703903646.html."
Can you please explain, that site seems to be a very strange scam/spam site of sorts (Polish Breivik, really?)
This seems like a mistake and there has been no copyright infringement. Can it please be undeleted?
@Murmix: Hm. Do you think it's possible your draft of Antonia Vai was copied to this alternate website (Wiki.polskibreivek) after you created it? This is the only reason why Antonia Vai came back as a 94.9% match to this site. Apologies about CSDing your article. That was my mistake. Boomer VialHolla20:47, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
To clarify, the message alert took me to a diff page and in a moment of madness I hit the block script button there, blocking the last editor (you) rather than going to the actual talk page. Sorry again Jimfbleak - talk to me?11:20, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
Here. Quite disparaging for the recently deceased, falling under WP:BLP. I know it was a mistake, as you probably saw the ref removed (which was supposed to be there) and assumed it was vandalism, overlooking the text you were restoring. Appreciate your hard work nonetheless — MusikAnimaltalk05:22, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
Dear Boomer Vial,
You deleted my article because of claimed plagiarism and gave me links to "polskibreivik". I could find nothing there related to my article. Please send me the link which you say I copied from. Thanks.
Ark of Wits
Ark of Wits (talk) 21:04, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
@Ark of Wits: It was actually a mistake on my part. You can contact the administrator, and ask the to undo the deletion. I'm looking through my internet history for the exact page, so this might take a moment. But I'm pretty sure that the page the I cited (that I'm currently looking for) was made after this article on Wikipedia. Boomer VialHolla01:58, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
@Ark of Wits: Here[8] is the website the I cited when I requested speedy deletion of your article. Again, it was a mistake on my part. Hopefully the administrator sees it that way as well. Boomer VialHolla02:05, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
Draft: The Generalized Whitehead Product
Hi,
You wrote that I should contact the administrator to have my article reinstated. I am new to Wikipedia and
don't know how to do this. Please send me instructions for this. Thanks
Ark of Wits (talk) 15:26, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
Re Mansaf being Jordanian or Jordanian and Palestinian
Hello, I'm Boomer Vial. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —the one you made with this edit to Kinesin— because it did not appear constructive. 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. Thanks. Boomer VialHolla 09:06, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
This was your message I got. The change that I made is correct and rightly needed. Most Kinesins moves to plus end of the Microtubule.
Hello, Boomer Vial. 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.
Thank you for your note. I work in the Communications department of J.D. Power and I'm trying to update some very old content on the site, including the logo that we no longer use. I'll refer to the tutorials and follow the guidelines for any proposed updates or changes.
108.171.135.186 (talk) 22:23, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
108.171.135.186 Your welcome. Please remember that paid editing is not allowed, and your edits will only be accepted on the basis of sourced evidence. I'm not sure, but if J.D. Powers has a website that represents the changes you are trying to reflect, it might suffice. Happy editing! Boomer VialHolla22:28, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
hey, no worries! My edit was indeed a positive one, but my edit summary was downright misleading. All in all, you had more reasons to revert than not to revert.
Your message regarding my edits in 1968 World Series.
In response to your first message, it was not allowing me to respond to your first message. I kept trying to "enter" text into the box, but was not allowing me.
Much of the edit/deletion revolved around information that was found in other entries or extraneous or repeat information that made the entry about the 1968 World Series difficult to read. For example, one of the toughest plays for an outfielder is a ball hit directly at them. Curt Flood's initial reaction was a typical one step in before going back on the rocket hit by Northrup. The writer spent undo time and references saying the same thing: he misplayed the ball. We got it the first time that the writer thinks Flood blew the series on that ball. Making four references was overkill.
The other edits involved the summary of the previous (1967) season for both teams, while there was an entry touching on the same subject. Very long, unnecessary copy that can already be found in other Wiki entries. The entry that was edited specifically dealt with the 1968 World Series. That's it. These entries are supposed to be quick and easy reads for a reader. Good detail is not discouraged, however, there has to be a happy median between a one-line summaries and what is written in this summary with overkill information that slows the read down. The "prelude" also details individual game substance, but yet goes into a repeat information in individual game (Game 1, Game 2, Game 3, etc.) details. One entry, for example, spent an entire four line graph detailing innings where the "slow" Tigers got runners on base but didn't score.
As a one-time professional copy editor, I took sports copy and made it more readable for multiple newspapers: Spartanburg (SC) Herald-Journal, the Marion (IN) Chronicle-Tribune, the Williamsport (PA) Gazette, the now defunct Cincinnati Post and the Cincinnati Enquirer. Not trying to harm the Wiki entries but make them more readable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.179.130.126 (talk) 14:55, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
this page above is being repeatedly deleted for unknown reasons.
The page is a summary of the anusasana parva.
A summary of the book is not vandalism.
All the pages and paragraphs have references cited to them.
the references are from sacred-texts.com
in that website the anusasana parva translation is available.
[1]
why are these paragraphs being repeatedly deleted.
Cluebot only objected to certain phrases which were modified
the reply to cluebot has been accepted.
the edit is only to say that adding paragraphs with references is not vandalism.
if there is any specific para to which there is an objection, please name it.
Hey there. Is there an welcome template for Twinkle for WP:OR? It can be rather confusing to leave templates on the talk pages of new users, when it does not explain exactly how the editor in question was editing outside of guidelines and policies. If not, can you direct me to an area of Wikipedia in which I could make such a suggestion? Thank you. Boomer VialHolla! We gonna ball01:46, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
I don't know of any welcoming templates that covers NOR specifically, other than maybe {{Welcome-laws}}. You can use {{uw-nor1}} and the other level templates to warn editors adding original research. If you feel like asking for a NOR welcome template, you might have some luck mentioning it at the WT:Welcoming Committee. Let me know if you have any other questions! --AntiCompositeNumber (Leave a message) 02:14, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi Boomer Vial, regarding your removal of the semi protected edit request template and the IP's request to move the page on Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations/1832 Heritage. IP users are unable to create pages in the Wikipedia namespace so, to open an SPI, that they need to create it in the Wikipedia talk namespace and ask that it be moved to the Wikipedia: namespace by an autoconfirmed user. Kind regards, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:21, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi Boomer Vial! I saw your message on the editor's user talk page and wanted to get back to you about it. I must be either stupid or missing something. I don't see how this username is a violation of UPOL; can you explain the username and help me understand why it is? Thanks for the heads up about this, by the way :-) ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs)07:38, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Oshwah Hey Oshwah. I removed my comment, as I was just typing up a report on UAA when you got back to me. The account name appears that it could be in violation of username policy as an promotional username. Your welcome (assuming I didn't make a mistake, haha.) Boomer VialHolla! We gonna ball07:41, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi Boomer Vial - The first username you reported: I tried looking it up with spaces and other combinations, and I couldn't match it to any company or organization that gave me the sure idea that it was promotional, so I held back from performing any action on that one. I'll take a look at this second username (although I don't see anything that gives me the idea that it's a blatant username violation either). ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs)14:40, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Ah! Good call - that one comes back to a company for sure. I went ahead and applied a soft block so that he can request a username change or use a new account. Cheers! ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs)14:42, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Username Policy - there are many kinds of usernames that are not allowed. When I believe that a username may be promotional, I judge it by Googling the username. If it comes back with results to an obviously-matching business name or a matching website domain that is promotional, then I'll usually proceed with a soft block if the username is blatantly obvious (meaning that the username can't possibly be anything else, or coincidentally mean anything else). If you're unsure, you can always wait until the user edits. Let me know if you have any more questions. ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs)23:29, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Hello. Noticed you using a script to add spaces round section headings, as with this edit. You might want to skip that suggestion, or tell the script's owner that it shouldn't really be trying to enforce that format, because the relevant bit of MoS, at MOS:HEADINGS, says quite clearly that
Spaces around the Title (e.g. ==Title==) are optional and ignored.
I don't edit Wikipedia but was looking for information on Sentinel Capital Partners and noticed that the same paragraph was written verbatim in two places next to each other in the same short article. Under the introductory section and under the "Operations" section. Looks like it was literally copy and pasted. I figured I would delete one of them to help Wikipedia out. I did give an explanation, I wrote "Deleting duplicate information" which is exactly what I did. If you want it to say the same exact thing back to back in the article then I apologize for the deletion. I got the information I needed and now I'm headed out. Just figured I'd mention the problem and try to help...
It is not the first time that Wikipedia has removed information about the Titanic that is false. For years, it was said in the article that John Jacob Astor was one of the people killed by the forward funnel and even used a source for it; it was removed when that story was disproved by Titanic historians. The Jack Phillips article maintained for many years that he died on boat B (depsite evidence to the contrary) and has now used sources to disprove that story. The Titanic sinking article (great job, btw, it certainly deserves its star) contradicts the one covering captain Edward Smith. The "Sinking of the RMS Titanic" describes Smith's actions as indecisive and it claims that he displayed a lack of crew management skills in the aftermath of Titanic hitting the iceberg, but his biographical article on Wikipedia states the exact opposite - that he performed his duties in an admirable fashion given the extraordinarily difficult circumstances and never lost his cool. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.144.247.125 (talk) 23:38, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
I did give sources in the revision I wrote. They were: "Testimony of Arthur G. Peuchen at Titanic inquiry.com" and ""British Wreck Commissioner's Inquiry. Day 9". Titanic Inquiry."
At the very least, take a look at the version I made or search for the quoted words or read a book.
78.144.247.125 Don't accuse me of not looking at the revisions. In none[9][10][11] of your edits regarding the matter did you cite any sources what so ever. Nor did you bother to put them into in-line citation format. Acroterion specifically told you to provide the sources to support the change. This means including it the correct format in the edit. Not posting it, and expecting us to go searching for it. The burden, again, is on you to prove so. Also, that's not an example of an reliable source. Boomer VialHolla! We gonna ball!00:01, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Lee's Summit North Wikipedia Page
Hello, I am a representative at Lee's Summit North High School. I saw your message that you undid changes that I had made to the Lee's Summit North Wikipedia page. I have reverted my changes back. The page had been vandalized with inappropriate content that needed to be removed immediately. I appreciate your comments. I have not dealt with vandalism before on Wikipedia so please be patient as I navigate through this. Lsnwebmaster (talk) 04:03, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi there. Thanks for your comment at AIV about that user, I appreciate your taking the time to look at the report and leave your thoughts. I agree with you that the the anon who is reporting some anons/users is not fully versed in policy and I have been monitoring the totality of a user's conduct before issuing a block. In regards to the specific comment you left, while that user's public contribution was not necessarily vandalism, taking a look at the edit filter log for them (I'm not sure if you are able to see everything without the sysop and edit filter manager flags) shows that they are clearly WP:NOTHERE and a vandalism only account. If you have any other questions or concerns, please feel free to let me know. Best, Mifter (talk) 00:38, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Mifter D'oh. I keep forgetting about the edit filter log. I can see it, I forgot it was there because I was only brought to awareness of it's existence the other day. Well, I left a message on the IP editor's talk page regarding the situation, so happy to help anyway I can. Boomer VialHolla! We gonna ball!00:44, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks! And don't worry about not noticing the edit filter, its super easy to forget to check when evaluating a user/anon. Mifter (talk) 00:49, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
I would like to follow up on what has been discussed here and on Mifter's talkpage... I had commented about this sort of thing with a couple other admins overtime, and I can say that there are some admins that will block a user/IP address with only limited warnings (levels 1, 2), and there are some who will only block after a level 4 warning is breached. It's a judgment call on the admin's part, whether or not they feel like a block is appropriate or not. Some admins crack down much harder on vandals than others, which is why I have been filing several reports at a time. Regarding accounts (yeah I know, I really should make one someday, lol), it is pretty easy to tell whether an editor is WP:NOTHERE from solely a couple of edits. In regards to the example that you provided above, Boomer Vial, with Hi dude 13579, this user had only one live edit before being blocked, but if you look through the edit filter log for this particular user, you will see that they would have had more live edits but they were stopped by the edit filter. Now, I understand your concern with the lack of warnings, though. Even though this user only had one warning from ClueBot, which I agree, wasn't necessarily vandalism. But they had attempted to make, for example, this edit which was subsequently stopped by the edit filter. I feel as though if one were to create an account, they should go into it knowing that there will be consequences for vandalism. Regardless of this or that, any admin is free to block no matter how they see fit. So with that in mind, I file several reports knowing that a few may get declined due to the particular admin who is happening to be patrolling WP:AIV at the time, which in this case, was Mifter. I also see that this user was also brought up in discussion. Now, Materialscientist made this block, so Mifter might have made a different decision with this user's contributions... On a separate note, I do see Materialscientist at WP:AIV a lot, and from what I can tell, they seem to crack down on vandalism to a much higher degree than some other admins patrolling WP:AIV. Regrading reports for IP addresses, this is much more of a judgment call, since IP addresses often change ownership. A lot of the IP address reports that I make to WP:AIV have a very long history of vandalism, with few to no constructive contributions at all within its editing history, along with a long block log history. Some admins will take the duration of the previous blocks into account when performing blocks on these IP addresses, while others will only consider the most recent edits. I see the benefit of both options here:
Long-term blocks: I've seen these blocks performed anywhere from 1 month up to as much as 3 years... These are particularly school, institution or library IP addresses. In my opinion, the benefit of this is that the block will prevent much more vandalism from occurring, then it will hinder a constructive user's ability to edit. Likewise, if a constructive editor is blocked from editing, the {{anonblock}} or {{school block}} templates will give the user instructions on how to create an account to edit (which again, I really need to do someday...). The only downside to this is that account creation is often disabled with these blocks, and I have seen some admins allow account creation with these blocks in order to rectify that problem. However, if an abusive user were to create an account and vandalize on this IP address, then the account would eventually be blocked and autoblock will only shortly prevent them from creating an account, which will be helpful to the constructive editor that may show up on a school IP once in a blue moon...
Short-term blocks: I've seen these blocks performed anywhere from 3 hours up to 72 hours. Even with an abusive block log, an administrator may not feel comfortable performing such a long block on an IP address. The benefit here would be that there would be very little collateral damage from the block's effect.|2=I'm going to go ahead and collapse this since its pretty long, but in short, I have responded to the conversation about my WP:AIV reports. Regards. 172.58.41.215 (talk) 05:30, 23 February 2017 (UTC)}}
Eh, I honestly wish admins would pick an level of enforcement, and stick with it. Especially considering the effort to warn someone for level 1 and up seems unnecessary at some points, and only necessary at other points. I do appreciate your thought-filled response though, 172.58.41.215. Thank you, and I will take it under advisement. Boomer VialHolla! We gonna ball!06:52, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
