User talk:AnOpenMedium

Welcome

Welcome to Wikipedia - I've enjoyed some of the shows your firm has made so it's good to see you looking to contribute here. (I note you first edited in September so accept my apologies for this being a late welcome) Circusandmagicfan (talk) 20:22, 21 November 2007 (UTC)Circusandmagicfan[reply]

Reply to your message

I wouldn't consider myself as being interested in Sinead O'Connor; I happened to make some edits, that's all. Regarding the section, if it's properly cited, that should eliminate COI risks, especially for someone like you who has ahead of time both stated and proven your affiliation with Open Media. Reinsert it, and if it's challenged/deleted again discuss it on the article's Talk page; meanwhile, be bold. YLee (talk) 20:35, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apology

I'm sorry. I didn't know. It was an honest mistake and I'm sure you can understand why I made it. I will, of course, reverse my edit at once.--Simon Peter Hughes (talk) 12:02, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

pat page

Hello. Please feel free to add an image to Pat_Page_(magician) article: it has just been approved! (I've no idea how to add images ...) If you can advise any indepedent sources for Page I'd be happy to include them, the article needs more of those. Thank you. Centretear (talk) 20:44, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brtish Political Drama Series

This is a response to the message on my talk page. I do not see where the problem is. It may be that a few are single programmes not series, but I doubt that matters unduly. A couple may be reconstructions of actual events, but are in fact dramatic reconstructions. If there are any that really do not belong, I would suggest that you recategorise them, by finding a more appropriate category, and then editing the article. You will find the categories at the bottom on the page. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:38, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A further response to what is on my talk page. In principle, as you say, "current affairs" series and "political discussion" series should of course no be in a "drama" category. However, I did not see anything in the category that I recognsied as being of those types. If there are some (and I did not recognise that there were) the solution is to move those articles to more suitable categories, by amending the category section at the end of each article. The new category might be something like Category:British current affairs series; if so the category would need to be created, as well, but I have not looked to see what there is already. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:01, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please edit to WP standards

In particular, please see WP:VERIFY for the policy regarding citations for Wikipedia articles, and please see Amazon Studios for a work in progress—not yet a good article, but far closer vis-a-vis sourcing than most to which you have contributed—as an example of an article on a television production company that is reasonably well sourced, and where sources are properly formatted. All editors are expected to uphold the quality standards, but this should especially be expected, pro forma, for professionals and subject matter experts. Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 05:31, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your helpful comments and for the example. While I always include a source, I see that I have not formatted them like your example: others have since made some changes, as have I.

AnOpenMedium (talk) 14:21, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Heh

Let me just say that's a very clever username (particularly in light of WP:BFAQ). DS (talk) 14:59, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks DS! It's nice to get a compliment once in a while (WP:BFAQ is listed on my User page but must admit it is a long time since I last read it). I have just celebrated ten years editing here, sadly not very frequently. My bosses only let me do archive searches and related stuff (such as Wikiwork) when we're not too busy on other things. Doing photo uploads at the moment (not having done that for some five years I got a bit muddled with the changing systems) and found some good pictures I think. Thank you again. AnOpenMedium (talk) 15:14, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of File:Alan Clark appearing on Opinions.jpg

The file File:Alan Clark appearing on Opinions.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Where is this "over-rotated" image going to be useful

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

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

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. - FlightTime (open channel) 10:45, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. In fact I have just posted a Help question on Pictures to find out how to deal with this (I had not expected the picture to be rotated on uploading). AnOpenMedium (talk) 10:46, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OTRS pending

I do not understand why you are doing this - FlightTime (open channel) 16:46, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, User:FlightTime. I think the OTRS pending tag may have been automatically triggered because AnOpenMedium indicated that permission has been forwarded to OTRS. I'm looking at the upload form to see if I can figure it out. :) For quite some time, the process worked for her, but occasionally software changes add new complexity! --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:09, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I have puzzlingly seemed to have failed at even uploading an image as a test. :/ I will try again...and expect the first one will pop up eventually and embarrass me when I'm not primed to delete it. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:27, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I have verified that this happens automatically when you place an OTRS number in the field for having sent in permission. This is a good safety measure, obviously, because sadly sometimes people do lie about this, but in your case it just makes unnecessary work for OTRS agents because your right to act as an agent for the company in uploads was verified long ago. I'll try another image to see if I can find a workaround for you. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:48, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'm not sure the best way to do this these days. :) I don't want to make it too complex for you, AnOpenMedium. I'm really appreciative of your donations! I've asked User:Magog the Ogre on Commons for any suggestions (diff). If Magog can't help, I will try elsewhere. :) User:FlightTime, if you can think of straightforward solutions, I would certainly appreciate your input as well. The images AnOpenMedium has donated are in quite a few cases the only images we have notable individuals, and while these software systems are obviously engineered for the greatest usefulness for the greatest number of people, I'm hoping that we can facilitate this kind of sustained and ongoing donation as easily as we can for AOM. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:26, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I have spent longer than I would have imagined this morning locating a free image I could upload and testing it out with the very helpful suggestion made by Magog. :) As a result, I have new instructions for you on your userpage. I hope this will help. And we have a new free picture, if the license turns out. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:12, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Moonriddengirl: No problem, thanx. - FlightTime (open channel) 14:31, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Moonriddengirl: Many thanks for all this! Your work on this - and the various associated pages - is much appreciated. It's also a relief to know it wasn't anything I was doing wrong. AnOpenMedium (talk) 11:27, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

August 2018

Hello, I'm Doniago. I noticed that you made one or more changes to an article, Claus von Bülow, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Please note that the source you provided does not establish the significance of the pop culture reference, as required under WP:IPCV. DonIago (talk) 14:09, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:After Dark (British TV series) participants

Hi AnOpenMedium. Note that WP:Categorization#Verifiable says this:

"Categorization of articles must be verifiable. It should be clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories. Use the {{Category unsourced}} template if you find an article in a category that is not shown by sources to be appropriate or if the article gives no clear indication for inclusion in a category."

Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:51, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Martinevans123. But not sure what you are suggesting may not be verified. If you mean “please verify that this person appeared on that programme” other discussions some while ago suggest that there is a long established Wikipedia view that tv programmes are their own sources. Or do you mean something else? Apologies if I have missed the point: I am new to the world of categorisation and all help most welcome. AnOpenMedium (talk) 17:45, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PS See for example Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Television#Plot_section (this is not the passage I remembered but hope it is sufficient to make the point) AnOpenMedium (talk) 18:10, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your prompt replies. I must say I'm not sure. I have always assumed TV appearances needed to be sourced in some way. If "tv programmes are their own sources", then there may be no problem (except that someone may need to check, especially in the case of drive-by additions by unregistered editors. I see you have restored the Cat at David Mellor with the edit summary "see List of After_Dark editions and www.openmedia.co.uk and User talk:AnOpenMedium#Category:After Dark (British TV series) participants)". I now see that all participants are unsourced at that list article. If TV programme participants are an accepted exclusion, then perhaps the advice at WP:Categorization#Verifiable ought to make that clearer! Maybe I'm just being overly cautious. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:42, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. it might be useful if you could include a mention of List of After Dark editions, and possibly "tv programmes are their own sources", in your edit summaries for future Category additions? Cheers.

Thanks for helping think this through. More examples are here.

Just to correct one point: "I now see that all participants are unsourced at that list article". Actually that isn't the case - List of After Dark editions is sourced to the production company website (as I was encouraged to do when setting up that article over ten years ago, even though it is not strictly necessary as per the point above).

The underlying point - as I was given to understand when researching this matter originally - is broadly "What is the source for Scrooge being a character in the Dickens tale A Christmas Carol? It is the book itself, rather than a secondary source. And the same is true of tv shows." Getting into this categorisation business is time-consuming enough (I still have several hundred names to do!) without discussing each and every addition so I welcome suggestions as to how to help with this, and will certainly add a mention of List of After Dark editions from now on. Much appreciate your support! AnOpenMedium (talk) 12:00, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see. Thanks for explaining. I must admit I was expecting to see a ref source after each individual name. Instead there is just that one external link in the "References" section. Maybe that section should really be called "Sources", as there are no in-line references as such? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:08, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think the category title ought to be the same as the already existing article about the series, which is After Dark (TV programme). Otherwise it's a recipe for confusion. JH (talk page) 16:35, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@User talk:Jhall1 Good idea, thank you for pointing this out. I can't see how to do this though - I am not experienced at categories - maybe you could edit it, I would be most grateful for some help? AnOpenMedium (talk) 17:23, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, when I go to the Category:After_Dark page to turn it into Category:After Dark (TV programme) as you suggest, there doesn't seem to be a way of doing that, perhaps because of the way I established the subcategories? Sorry if I have muddled things. AnOpenMedium (talk) 17:27, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looking again at, for example, A. J. Ayer, I must admit some lingering scepticism with this Category. Will all participants, in all TV discussion programmes (which have Wikipedia articles about them), get similar Categories? I'm weighing up Ayer's entire career with the number of minutes he spent on After Dark. Sorry. Perhaps all musicians who ever appeared on The Old Grey Whistle Test will have a corresponding Category? All actors and all actresses, who have ever appeared, in any radio or television programme (which have an Wikipedia article), will have a corresponding Category? Seems a bit much. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:46, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, aren't Categories supposed to be about "defining characteristics" in some way? Ok, Bet Lynch has Category:Coronation Street characters, but even Julie Goodyear doesn't have Category:Coronation Street (but she probably desevrves to have that, as do all the main cast members). Martinevans123 (talk) 21:38, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ongoing interest @User:Martinevans123 (hope you don't mind my adjusting the position of your latest comments, as they don't seem to be in reply to @User talk:Jhall1). What you are now asking about is rather beyond my expertise I'm afraid: I know a little about tv production but not that much about Wikipedia editing, despite having edited sporadically for some time (I learned about image uploading, for example, but am in no sense any kind of Wikipedia image expert). In any case, as I said above, Wikipedia categories are a completely new area for me, so all I did when setting these up was follow the instructions I received from more experienced editors. I suggest the best place to discuss your questions might be one of the corners of the project dedicated to categorisation, where experienced editors can no doubt help with Category:Coronation Street characters etc.

Incidentally, did you follow up the link I suggested earlier (here), specifically looking at some of the non-fiction series, as they might provide clues? Hope this helps.AnOpenMedium (talk) 09:46, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Please do with my comments exactly as you please. I was only using Julie as an illustrative example. I have no desire to create any more Categories! I quite agree that my questions would be best raised at some central Category location. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:26, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Martinevans123: Your scepticism was well-founded. I've just nominated both the category discussed above and Category:After Dark (British TV series) hosts for deletion; the nominations are at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 March 19. When creating categories (or anything on Wikipedia), it's a good idea to model their structure on existing well-established pages. For what it's worth, I'd never heard of After Dark until an hour ago. Graham87 15:29, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I moved Category:After Dark to Category:After Dark (TV programme) per the standard convention. Graham87 15:33, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Martinevans123 @User:Graham87 I have responded at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 March 19. AnOpenMedium (talk) 17:13, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Linda Colley's wiki page

Hello, I work for Linda Colley and she's requested that the 1993 Opinions lecture be removed from the wiki page as she feels there are far more recent, relevant pieces of journalism that could be included on the page.

Thank you. I have responded here (on the Talk page for the article itself).

AnOpenMedium (talk) 09:16, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Message

Hello, this is Shay0608. Apologies for the incorrect editing of 'The Spy Machine'. As you may have noticed, I am new to Wikipedia editing and am completing a course for my University Degree to which I was required to choose from a 'Stub Class' article and fix the label that was seen on the page for the issue that was tagged as lengthy quotations. As it was a practice activity for my class to assist my learning of Wikipedia editing, I will now take your feedback and will remove my edits.

(talk) 10:47, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Help me! re Andrea Dworkin image

{{help me}}

I have just written to an editor who has infringed copyright while claiming to have received permission. The relevant section on this editor's Talk page is here:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Binksternet#Andrea_Dworkin_image

Never having had to deal with copyright infringement before I do not know how/when to tag the offending file and would be grateful if someone could assist.

AnOpenMedium (talk) 15:49, 19 October 2021 (UTC) AnOpenMedium (talk) 15:49, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the image has received a permission ticket, I don't think there's anything that can be done. That being said, it's hosted on Commons so even if I knew of the best way to proceed, I am not familiar with Commons protocol and I think it would be best to ask for advice there. If you want more help, change the {{help me-helped}} back into a {{help me}}, stop by the Teahouse, or Wikipedia's live help channel, or the help desk to ask someone for assistance. Primefac (talk) 17:18, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks but I don’t think this new image has received permission. I obtained permission for the (similar but not the same) image I uploaded nine years ago, which has been stable and included in at least one article since then (but which this editor seems to have taken objection to). That is not the same thing. In my layperson’s eyes, the current “permission” is a forgery, as it refers to the earlier image. Or have I misunderstood? AnOpenMedium (talk) 17:27, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, AnOpenMedium. The issue here is mainly that this is an issue on Commons not Wikipedia. :) The permission ticket was for the specific frame, so I've reverted to the frame that is licensed and explained to the user, including the (always available) choice for the community to delete the image entirely if they do not feel the licensed one is appropriate. I do not think that Commons has a protocol for revision deleting the unlicensed version, but I'll ask. :) Also, sorry it's so hard to get ahold of me these days! I really appreciate your contributions, and I wish I weren't so busy and preoccupied. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:03, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Answered your question at my talk page, but copying here, too. <3

I'll answer here but copy to your page as well. I'm sorry for not explaining better; you always seem so knowledgeable that I forget sometimes that there are layers of policy and practice that are unfamiliar to you!

There are several levels of "deletion" that are technically possible on our sites. What I was referring to was the level of deletion available on Commons, which is a different project from Wikipedia. I'm less familiar with which levels of deletion are used for what situation.

What I did removed the version of the image from publication (although there is sometimes an odd server lag before the change is visible to me- a Commons administrator would probably know why that happens, and it might have been on my computer only.) The copyright violating content is no longer published and visible to users of Commons or users of the Wikipedia projects where that image has been used. There are two additional layers of deletion which can be invoked in certain circumstances. On English Wikipedia, we have traditionally used (not being very active, I would need to review current practices) "revision deletion" for circumstances where a copyvio might be either intentionally or accidentally restored. That helps protect against that. I am not sure if Commons has such a protocol. Their risks and needs are different than this text-based project. :)

Hope that helps! --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:18, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Commons has a mechanism for revision deletion. Some people just request it at commons:Commons:Administrators' noticeboard or you could use the {{Speedydelete}} template with a clear explanation. Personally I think the first is the safer option.Agathoclea (talk) 11:14, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Agathoclea. I've copied your comment to Moonriddengirl's Talk page. -- 08:39, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problem on Jerome Kuehl

Content you included in the above article appears to have been copied from http://iamhist.net/category/iamhist-blog/, which is not released under a compatible license. Copying text directly from a source is a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policy. Unfortunately, for copyright reasons, some content had to be removed. Content you add to Wikipedia should be written in your own words. Please let me know if you have any questions. — Diannaa (talk) 16:01, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks User:Diannaa. Your paraphrasing is much appreciated. I was a great rush on Friday and doing the page took far longer than I had anticipated. I would have got round to making similar edits, but not until today.

However, although I know little about Wikithings, I have to be quite good at copyright (I work for a company which holds IP). My understanding is that a list can indeed be copyright, but not usually the information in it. So I have re-introduced mention of the publications you removed, as it would seem helpful for people to know where to go to find more by him. This time however this appears in the form of an alphabetised list (with an additional source beyond the publications themselves). Hope ok. AnOpenMedium (talk) 10:54, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Substituting an alphabetised list is a good option.— Diannaa (talk) 14:58, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]