User talk:Alison/Archive 78

Archive 75

Archive 76

Archive 77

Archive 78

Archive 79

Archive 80

→

Archive 85

A beer for you!

Enjoy, you deserve it! Cheers, Huldra (talk) 20:33, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

• Aww - thanks!! Very timely, in these 90F temperatures here in the South Bay - Alison ^❤ 22:38, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Dein Guter Ruf

Thank you for blocking editor Dein Guter Ruf. I have just finished cleaning up all of his/her citation deletions of yesterday. You indicated abuse of multiple accounts. Is there another set of edits by this person that I can clean up? --Bejnar (talk) 04:22, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks :) Sure - check this thread on ANI, and my recent block log - Alison ^❤ 05:32, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

I've completed KaraSport, Vivificanti, and Fegner Stangl; from your block list I've just got Leew Donn and Mikael Fik left to go. --Bejnar (talk) 07:18, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for helping :) - Alison ^❤ 07:24, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Benjiboi possibly at the Chris Crocker article

Heads up, just in case you think it's worth checking on whether or not Unequivocal (talk · contribs) is Benjiboi. As you know, the Chris Crocker article is one of the articles that Benjiboi cannot stay away from. And given Benjiboi's interest in editing pornography topics or topics related to pornography in some substantial way...

Anyway, whether Benjiboi is back at that article or not, Angeelmao (talk · contribs) and Officialomarn (talk · contribs) are likely WP:Sockpuppets of each other or WP:Meatpuppets. It's highly suspicious that all three of these registered accounts suddenly popped up. Either two of them came from a forum that is discussing Crocker, and they essentially came as WP:Meatpuppets, while Benjiboi (who watches the Chris Crocker article) decided to register a Wikipedia account and revert, or all three are the same person (WP:Edit warring to throw others off the scent of WP:Sockpuppetry). I put in a WP:Request for page protection, before Backendgaming (talk · contribs) came along to help out with reverting Unequivocal, and lately Materialscientist has been helping out with the reverting. Flyer22 (talk) 08:22, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Possible rev/del

Hello A. You have helped in the past in letting me know whether an edit met the requirements for R/D. When you have the time would you take a look at this and deal with it if it merits removal. Thanks for your time and enjoy your weekend. MarnetteD|Talk 04:46, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi again. A second look at the article shows that the whole thing may be a candidate for AFD. Not a single source is provided. It is time for me to log off and hit the hay. I'll check things tomorrow. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 05:03, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Mike Krahulik

I noticed that you added a citation to Tumblr to a BLP. Is there some reason that this passes WP:BLPSPS? As far as I can tell, this is the very definition of a violation of that policy. Maybe we can find a better, more reliable source for this content? I have no problem with expanding the "dickwolf" controversy, and there must be reliable commentary on it, but I don't think Tumblr is the right place to find it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:05, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

• I'm generally not a fan of tumblr for obvious reasons, but the particular example given provides a very detailed and accurate timeline of the Dickwolves controversy from its beginning right up to the present. And it's very well sourced. In this example, I see very little there which could be considered a BLP violation. If I start to peel back the layers of the tumblr page and use its sources to expand the controversy section, it's going to turn into a very detailed, highly-cited paragraph indeed - maybe even WP:UNDUE. Thoughts? - Alison ^❤ 17:10, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Well... the Tumblr blog itself is self-published commentary on a controversy. I think this is exactly what the policy was meant to keep out of articles. I can do a WP:VG/RS custom Google search for krahulik dickwolves and probably find a comparable source there with a bit of digging. It's tedious but not impossible; I already replaced half of the citations already. I don't really have very strong opinions on how much coverage would become undue, but aesthetically, I prefer minimalism. If you want to do a paragraph, that's fine with me. Personally, I would probably just write a sentence. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:50, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Hey, how's this sound? I found an article in the New Statesman that directly discusses the Tumblr blog. We could resurrect the original line about how people have created a timeline and use this as the citation for it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:28, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

BMJ

Please fill out this very short form to receive your free access to BMJ's library: link to form. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 03:36, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

•  Done - thank you :) - Alison ^❤ 06:18, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Kallmann syndrome page

Hello,

I noticed that an external link was deleted off the page today. I have read the WP:EL page and thought that the link was OK. The link is to a Rare Connect web page for Kallmann syndrome patients. It not a social network page like Facebook but a moderated community for patients with Kallmann syndrome that provides unto date medical information. It is an organisation run by an EU funded organisation in Spain, the European network for rare diseases and the US organisation, Network of Rare Diseases.

It is exactly the sort of information source that patients with Kallmann syndrome would be interested in and hopefully a link on the Wikipedia page would prove helpful.

I was hoping you could take another look at the link. I do not want to go against Wikipedia policy of course but I thought the link was a good one. I can provide more information about that link if it would help.

Thank you.

Neilsmith38 (talk) 21:27, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Mail

Hello, Alison. Please check your email – you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{YGM}} template.

--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 21:20, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Request

I'm requesting WP:REVDEL#2 on Special:Contributions/38.103.27.66's edits on Asexuality. The edit summaries are "Grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material". Thank you! EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:02, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

• Hi there. I'm going to say  Not done to that one, sorry. What I see happening there is robust discourse and disagreement. If people were being directly named, I'd likely revdel under WP:NPA but here doesn't really qualify, sorry. It may be offensive to those who claim demisexuality (and I put together Draft:Demisexuality, BTW) but it's not "grossly insulting" - Alison ^❤ 19:54, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Okay! I appreciate you taking the time to look at it. I personally find it extremely insulting when people claim identities are bullshit, but the line for REVDEL isn't terribly clear to me, hence my request. I know you do a lot of work on sexuality-related articles (and did see you worked on Demisexuality) so I trust your judgement here. Thanks! EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:30, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Sockpuppet

Hallo Alison. The User:Serzhik is the sockpuppet of the User:Samak. Would you please block it. Diako ^{«  Talk »} 11:36, 24 July 2014 (UTC)