User talk:Vfrickey

August 2008

Thank you for making a report on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and all users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, it appears that the editor you reported may not have engaged in vandalism, or the user was not sufficiently or appropriately warned. Please note there is a difference between vandalism and unhelpful or misguided edits made in good faith. If they continue to vandalise after a recent final warning, please re-report it. Thank you! Edits are not vandalism. Please ensure recent edits constitute vandalism before re-reporting.. This is a content dispute that should be brought directly in the article's discussion page or directly with the user. -- lucasbfr ^talk 15:14, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

response to Lucasbfr re: vandalism of entry on Nadhmi Auchi

As I understand it, edits should be commented on, as should content disputes. Neither has happened with respect to the changes made this morning to the entry on Nadhmi Auchi. Whoever made the change just went in and made it with no explanation or comment whatever, making it very difficult to differentiate between this change and any other bit of politically-motivated vandalism.vfrickey (talk) 15:21, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I agree that explaining the edits you make are a courtesy (I always do it, at least for my own sake). However we can't hold all users to that high a standard, and many of them don't do it. I see an otehr user reverted the changes, though. Feel free to do it when you disagree with a change (as long as you are not "edit warring". I personally only revert once a change I disagree with, if I am reverted myself I bring the matter with the user/on the talk page) -- lucasbfr ^talk 11:14, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that in the current Presidential campaign here in the US, one of the candidates, Barack Obama, has had his campaign aggressively "editing" every reference to him that can even tangentially be considered adverse. That's what happened, apparently. I DID have an "edit war" going on with respect to another article (on the US Senate Subcommittee on European Affairs, in which the other "editor" tried to cover up Obama's nonfeasance up to that point as subcommitee chairman - in a year and a half in the Senate, he didn't call a single meeting of his subcommittee. Some of us feel Europe deserves more attention than that). :-) vfrickey (talk) 00:08, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Terribly short notice: Boulder WLM on 15 September

Apologies for getting this out so late, but this is all Pharos' fault. Please blame everything on Pharos.

That said, this message is just to let you know that we're having a photo hunt for Wiki Loves Monuments at 11:00 in the morning of Saturday the 15th in Boulder, probably somewhere around CU, though the exact location hasn't yet been decided. Since you have previously attended or expressed interest in other meetups in the area, hopefully you might be able to come.

Please sign up as soon as possible if you're interested; we'd love to have you along to help postpone the squirrel apocalypse. Or at least get some decent images. -— Isarra ༆ 05:03, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies.

Dear Sir, apparently you took offense at my recent post to your talk page. I might have chosen the wrong wording to express my confusion. If that is the case, I aplogize. I just wondered why you deemed it necessary to edit old talk-page contributions of yourself, which made the page in question show up on my watchlist. Since I did not want to drag the article talk page into a "meta" discussion, I took this to your user talk page, which is the appropriate place to discuss such matters. As such, please refrain from referring to such inquiry as "shit", "unsolicited" and "trolling", thank you. -- DevSolar (talk) 10:32, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]