User talk:Morwen/16

Archived talk: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14 15. 16. Current talk: User_talk:Morwen

Disambiguation link notification for September 13

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Kieron Gillen, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fear Itself (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:12, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Welcome

Welcome back! Hope you'll be around for a while! Warofdreams talk 13:05, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Morwen - Talk 13:22, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Page Curation newsletter

Hey Morwen. I'm dropping you a note because you used to (or still do!) patrol new pages. This is just to let you know that we've deployed and developed Page Curation, which augments and supersedes Special:NewPages - there are a lot of interesting new features :). There's some help documentation here if you want to familiarise yourself with the system and start using it. If you find any bugs or have requests for new features, let us know here. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 12:45, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Non-free restricted use

Template:Non-free restricted use has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:10, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

User:Abigail Brady

No need to respond; just want you to be aware of User:Abigail Brady in case this is in fact not you, as that account is claiming to be an alternate account of you. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:30, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation

The Foundry Visionmongers, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as B-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you are more than welcome to continue submitting work to Articles for Creation.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Jethro B 06:45, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

JiM

Hi, Morwen. I've got limited Internet today, so if I can't respond quickly sometimes, that's the hurricane-related reason. If you're anywhere in the affected area, I hope you and yours and well and safe.

We don't do issue-by-issue plot breakdowns and by extension we don't do laundry lists of story-arc-by-story-arc plot breakdowns, which are just several-issue plots instead of single-issue plots. The basic WikiProject Comics style about this appears at WP:CMOS#PLOT and says in part:

Summarising should never be on a per-issue basis and should only outline the plot rather than describe minor details. Additionally, plot descriptions must include cited reference to critical analysis published in secondary sources. Editors should approach the discussion of fictional concepts within a "real world context"; this means editors should describe fictional elements in terms of how they relate to the real world, as fictional characters or topics.

The key thing is "must include cited reference to critical analysis published in secondary sources"; the articles Spider-Man and Superman are good examples. Obviously, not every WikiProject Comics article is up to their standard, but a great many, as you'll see, do not, in fact, have lists of story arcs with in-universe plot details. I hope this information helps. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:52, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Morwen. I would say the article on the series The Amazing Spider-Man would be a good example. And, yes, if there's good, citable commentary available on one particular arc or on one writer's work, then by all means.

What doesn't work under MOS is what we in journalism call "a laundry list" that's basically a bulleted list in prose form. Also, a writer's creation of a character in a given comic isn't necessarily notable: Steve Gerber, for instance, created dozens of characters in his Marvel stories, but only a handful are enduring and notable. There's also a concern about what some editors call "recentism", in which articles get heavily weighted toward content of the last year or two, out of proportion to the overall subject.

If I don't answer right away, it'll be because of the spotty Internet. And I'm glad you're nowhere near this awful mess. --23:19, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely. And thanks for the word on the Avengers vs. X-Men article. God, do I remember the messes we went through during World War Hulk and Civil War...! With regards, --Tenebrae (talk) 23:41, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

The article needs more citing, as the obvious tag at the top of clearly states, but the larger point remains; the PH isn't a list of every single story arc and what happened in it. It mentions arcs and particular stories only when notable (e.g. the death of Gwen Stacy) and most importantly puts things in a real-world context. If one word emerges as paramount from all this, it's context.

If you want other examples, perhaps try Jungle Action, Blazing Combat, Tales to Astonish, Sgt. Fury and his Howling Commandos, U.S.A. Comics, or The Spectacular Spider-Man. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:48, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Re: A + X

Thank you for responding, I not sure you can equate special series with limited, most limited series have a set number of issues. Also I dont know why that other reference is there, I'll replace it with this one that says it is ongoing.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:02, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Very well.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:08, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

This doesn't really help my case but the Marvel page doesn't make any reference to a set number of issues and says "every month" with (2012 - present) in the title.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:25, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Michael Trent

The article Michael Trent has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unsourced BLP

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. -- Patchy1 11:26, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Concerning a BLP

Hi, I see that you have hidden some revisions of the above page. There is some dubious material also on the talk page, if you or one of your admin stalkers could deal with it, please.--Peter cohen (talk) 01:37, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Looks like my colleague User:Scott MacDonald has taken care of this. Morwen - Talk 10:09, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, he had also hidden material from the article. I decided that posting to each of your talk pages was the best way to get things fixed without spreading interest in the contents. Thanks for looking. --Peter cohen (talk) 12:05, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Regarding a recent post of your to a Talk page explaining why you had revdeleted an edit

Your advice was

• Hello. I have reverted your edit and hidden it, to this page, because of our policy on biographies of living people. Whatever rumours are flying around are just that: rumours, and Wikipedia would need some serious sources before reporting on them. Please do not add this information again.

and I added a note

• 'Serious' sources are not a sufficient protection for you, nor for Wikipedia depending on its jurisdiction, against a suit of libel as it still a libel in most jurisdictions, and certainly in the UK, to repeat a libel in good faith. The question of qualified privilege is more complex. Suppose in the UK an MP makes use of Parliamentary privilege to make a statement about an individual which would normally be libellous. Someone in the business of publishing entire parliamentary debates would be protected by so-called qualified privilege, but a newspaper repeating the statement about the individual in a piece devoted to that individual, or the circumstances surrounding him, would probably not be. 93.104.213.2 (talk) 08:32, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, quite. So, I was simplifying for a user who obviously wouldn't have understood such jargon (if they had they wouldn't have been adding such stuff in the first place). My warning had the intended result. As to your other point which you made elsewhere, whether the entire discussion should be taking place in camera, I can't see how we can practically maintain order on that page without mentioning that there is a problem with that page specifically. That people have been adding stuff to it and it has been revdelled is visible in the history still, just not the particular content. Part of the open nature of this project means we have no private admin-only channels of communication, and not every user has off-wiki contact details, the only way to communicate with some users is their talk page. Now, this might mean the entire use of a wiki to conduct editorial collaboration is doomed under English defamation law, but that's massively speculative, and I'm willing to stand by my actions. Morwen (Talk) 09:53, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes fair points, but I'm inclined to think that in practice what you describe as editorial collaboration indeed won't be protected by qualified privilige i.e. to say these editorial Talk pages will be regarded as essentially social media pages. In these circumstances when contacting (as an administrator) an editor to explain why you revdeleted a libellous edit, you should use some form of words such as "regarding your recent BLP edit" and not identify the individual who has been defamed. I'm pretty sure a UK civil court will be disinclined to extend qualified privilege to an administrator acting in good faith. I don't know how Wikipedia discusses these issues, but I suggest you might care to open a debate somewhere. And certainly I think you should avoid suggesting to editors that all that is required is a 'serious' source. 93.104.213.2 (talk) 19:59, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

That latter one is a good point, perhaps "serious" isn't quite strongly worded enough. I'll endeavour to be clearer in future. As to the other point. Well. This is tricky, isn't it. If we put aside the fact that I'm in England for the moment, the reason Wikipedia cracks down hard on this sort of thing isn't because of fear of action - either to itself of to its editors - from what to it is a foreign jurisdiction (I believe the SPEECH Act provides some level of protection from that): it's for our own editorial reasons. Now, let's remember I'm in England. I first was alerted to the problem with the article when another editor posted that there were problems on the article to the appropriate noticeboard. Another admin stepped in and dealt with the situation initially, and I placed the page on watchlist. Later, this user added it back, so I reverted, suppressed the information on the page, and warned them.

If I had merely alluded to the particular page, it would still have been fairly trivial to find out what article was involved, given the fact that everything's in a logged database! So do User_talk pages count as publishing whereas history pages don't? I can't see any reason to suppose that the entire thing wouldn't be publishing.

Obviously this is a complex issue, and I'm not a lawyer, as they say. But, given what I was doing, I find it really unlikely that I'd be the target of action rather than the thousands of people doing actual rumour-spreading on Twitter and Facebook. Can you imagine the public outcry if there someone doing what I was doing would be targetted.

In this case I could have been vaguer and it still have been clear, because this user wasn't making many many edits. Another user might be making enough that it wasn't obvious and a warning would have to be specific to be effective. So, in conclusion, I dunno. Morwen (Talk) 20:27, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

So, further to this, you'll see that someone left me a note about this article lower down this page page. I literally can't control that. If what it was was saying was actionable, am I liable for leaving it there? It raises all sorts of questions that I can't hope to answer. Morwen (Talk) 09:02, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I think you would be wise to factor that edit below in the same manner I did the one above. Qualified privilege almost certainly doesn't extend to you as a Wikipedia administrator. When courts of law refer to Wikipedia they always stress that it is a website anyone can edit and in that respect it is no different at all from other social media sites such as Twitter or Facebook, where the public are gradually been educated they can't in fact post what they like. If I were you I would leave all this to your Foundation and not get involved except to remove violations on your own patch i.e. this Talk page and any page you happen to visit in the course of your admin duties. 93.104.213.2 (talk) 00:02, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Connected AfDs

Hey. Yeah, I was going to get it going myself at some point. If you want to, go ahead, I'll support you . doktorb _words^deeds 16:24, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi there. I added additional information to Doktorbuk's talk page which may also be of interest to yourself regarding DAB ensemble articles. --tgheretford (talk) 23:47, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Alistair McAlpine, Baron McAlpine of West Green

rather interesting edits there recently (not by me), would love to know your thoughts / opinion. i dont have access to good newspaper article databases at the moment (although if i spent some time after work tomorrow....) Decora (talk) 02:10, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Another question. The talk page for the article above has many 'oversighted'/deleted edits. And some of these have my nickname next to them. It makes it look like I made a bunch of improper edits to the talk page, when I did not. All I did was add ordinary biographical stuff about his parental line, etc. I would like to know if there is any way to 'de-oversight' my particular edits to the talk page somehow? I am assuming that my edits got 'caught up' in some kind of mass-oversighting action but i cannot be sure? Thank you for any insight you can provide. Decora (talk) 02:17, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Update Nov 9

Egads, the article is becoming a bit of a mess now. I didn't realize until just now that you started the article in 2005. Must be very odd to watch it's transformation the past few days? I notice people are figthing about whether to include denied allegations or not...(a debate i am not taking part in)... but it is interesting to me that I have seen similar arguments before about UK people articles but not about American people articles - do you think it is a cultural thing between the UK and America (i assume those are the two biggest English wiki editors?) ?

The other thing that fascinates me is that German wikipeda on him, which even now contains more details on him than the English version, ( de:Alistair_McAlpine,_Baron_McAlpine_of_West_Green )... has gone completely unchanged since July.... Decora (talk) 18:01, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Hah! Until you pointed that out I had forgotten I started that. I've created quite a lot of articles in my time - despite my prolonged absence from 2007 until a couple of months ago, still number 41 on the articles created high score table. I suppose it's time to crack open Google Translate and figure out what de. have that we don't. Morwen (Talk) 18:07, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Just to add to the IP above (German incidentally) and to my remarks supporting her here to say that I think you and your fellow administrators did do a good job controlling the situation here. I do think Wikipedia comes out of this rather well. FrontBottomFracas (talk) 14:55, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Callump90

Sadly the promise not to create any more hoaxes turned out to be false and the editor has continued with their previous action. - SchroCat (talk) 05:52, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 11

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Charlcutt (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Lyneham

Situation Vacant (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Partners in Crime

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:43, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

comics help

i am seeing that you are really doing a lot of research regarding comics articles lately. actually i'm a comic geek and i stay up to date 24/7 regarding comics and i'm trying to update as soon as possible. so if you want any kind of help in setting things up do tell me . and really if you want me to help in your research i'll be glad. we both can set,create and update many articles regarding comics. i'm awaiting your answer. --Shoxee1214 (talk) 19:04, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Currently I'm just poking around comics articles, trying to take a feel for them and the folks working on them. In the longer term, I've a mind to get an article about a really long-running Marvel title (perhaps Uncanny X-Men) to good article status, so we can use it as an example for other writing. Morwen (Talk) 19:21, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

yeah good . in time do let me know. hey i want to ask something . long running titles are really of worth so dont you think we should create articles for titles which have been running around for 4 to 5 decades because they atleast deserve their own title after so much time. what do you think? --Shoxee1214 (talk) 19:36, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I think our main focus should be on improving the articles we have. Morwen (Talk) 19:38, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

ok then one thing as you have plenty of experience knowing wikipedia. i just want your one help. do tell me all the basic guideline about what to include in article and what makes an article relevant so i should create,set,edit,update according to those guidelines. i'll appreciate that. ok? --Shoxee1214 (talk) 19:41, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, WP:WAF and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Comics would seem to be a good place to start. Morwen (Talk) 19:46, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Proof of identity

Here is my proof of identity as agreed. 149.255.57.233 (talk) 19:48, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Queen Elizabeth Land

That was a quick addition! You even beat the team at Wikishire, although they put in a full article here.

All that's missing is a photgraph or two. Howard Alexander (talk) 13:40, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Regards on the article about Marvelous Alejo

Thanks and apologies for my late reply. I want to clarify that I didn't claim I am Marvelous Alejo or any other person you mentioned. I recognize the provisions on copyright and intellectual property. Do not worry, I will try to fix this mess. Again, my sincere apologies. RafaelPPascual (talk) 06:56, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

File:CromwellRoadSign.jpg missing description details

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as:

• File:CromwellRoadSign.jpg

is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the image, and it will be more informative to readers.

If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.

If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Theo's Little Bot (error?) 08:21, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Igor Mitoraj

The article Igor Mitoraj has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Concerns over WP:NOTABILITY for biographies; article suggests no coverage in mainstream sources

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:23, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Chelsea Manning

Very sorry about that, hadn't even heard that Chelsea was potentially trans, let alone that she was now defining as a woman. Feel free to change back! Cls14 (talk) 12:44, 22 August 2013 (UTC)