Contextmatters

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Contextmatters, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Invitrovanitas (talk) 13:46, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Meg Vaillancourt

The article Meg Vaillancourt has been proposed for deletion because under Wikipedia policy, all biographies of living persons created after March 18, 2010, must have at least one source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners or ask at Wikipedia:Help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Invitrovanitas (talk) 14:11, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

That sounds like a good policy. I only created the article because I saw a dead link connected to her name while reading the WGBH article. (Same goes for Greater Boston article that I created) Contextmatters (talk) 15:00, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Copyright problems with Greater Boston (news show)

Hello. Concerning your contribution, Greater Boston (news show), please note that Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images obtained from other web sites or printed material, without the permission of the author(s). This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://www.facebook.com/group.php?v=wall&viewas=0&gid=51666340514. As a copyright violation, Greater Boston (news show) appears to qualify for deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. Greater Boston (news show) has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message.

If you believe that the article or image is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License (CC-BY-SA) then you should do one of the following:

• If you have permission from the author, leave a message explaining the details at Talk:Greater Boston (news show) and send an email with the message to permissions-enwikimedia.org. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
• If a note on the original website states that it is licensed under the CC-BY-SA license, leave a note at Talk:Greater Boston (news show) with a link to where we can find that note.
• If you hold the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the CC-BY-SA and GFDL, and note that you have done so on Talk:Greater Boston (news show).

However, for textual content, you may simply consider rewriting the content in your own words. While contributions are appreciated, Wikipedia must require all contributors to understand and comply with its copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright concerns very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Thank you. shoy (reactions) 14:42, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Got it. I did tweak it but, evidently, not enough. Point noted for the future. Sorry to cause problems Contextmatters (talk) 14:59, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you must sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 15:09, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

lol. another foulup. ok, sorry! Contextmatters (talk) 15:13, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Spring 2011 Campus Ambassador

Hi, Contextmatters. I'm glad you're interested in this program. Just let me know where you would like me to email the application and I'll send it your way. Thanks! Pjthepiano (talk) 03:23, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Please send to helena.patrice@gmail.com. thanks! Contextmatters (talk) 04:21, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Nikki Benz

Hi, I removed the speedy deletion tag you placed on this page, as it doesn't appear to meet any of the criteria for speedy deletion. Wikipedia is not censored and does include topics such as pornography if they have already been covered in reliable sources. ThemFromSpace 15:13, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thanks Contextmatters (talk) 20:35, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Orphan tag on 60second Recap

Re 60second Recap. You removed the orphan tag but there are only two incoming links from other Wikipedia articles. I think the tag would be useful to encourage other editors to link to this article. The tag doesn't mean it has zero links, just encourages people to add links. Your thoughts? — Brianhe (talk) 18:50, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Gak, I just read the orphan criteria and we're encouraged only to use this tag for articles with zero links. So, disregard and happy editing. — Brianhe (talk) 18:52, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

"Legacy" (Discussing films/movies about a historic event) and sections on Wikipedia

Hello! I am the person who wrote the section about the five minute Snowden movie.

I read your edit summary and then reverted your edit. Here is why:

• 1. It is normal for articles about historical people and events to discuss what creative media arose from them, such as movies, comics, video games, etc. Consider the section Public_image_of_Barack_Obama#Popular culture - You may say "But then this content shouldn't belong on the main page" - In that case wait until further sub-articles are split off and then the content can be moved.
• 2. A "promotional" section is usually one sourced only to official websites and/or written in a promotional language. Pay careful attention to the sourcing; the sources are Agence France-Presse, Los Angeles Times, Wall Street Journal, etc. When you use reliable sources to build up a section, you are doing what is supposed to be done on Wikipedia.
• 3. Wikipedia is based on referencing secondary sources. So if newspapers extensively cover a five minute fan film posted to YouTube, then the article should have a section on it.
• 4. There is a lot of content about this short film because so far it is the only film about the Snowden affair. If/when it gets more coverage so it can be separated into its own article, or if/when more media about Snowden appear, the "importance" of this short film would be reduced and its "weight" would be reduced.

WhisperToMe (talk) 19:57, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

After some consideration I started Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(films)#Notability_of_Verax, a discussion on splitting the Snowden film stuff into its own article. That way, a lot of the extra detail is in the article about the film itself. WhisperToMe (talk) 20:36, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

• I found that you reverted the insertion a second time. Your edit summary: "This section should convey information about Snowden's legacy. A spammy, overlong passage about an indie movie doesn't make the cut." - I did not see any indication that you considered what I wrote above. "Spammy" texts do not include information sourced to secondary newspaper sources. Also consider that popular culture is a part of a person's legacy, and I was able to start a Wikipedia article on this "indie" film: Verax (film). Therefore the revert was not appropriate. WhisperToMe (talk) 16:49, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I have started a discussion over the inclusion of the film here: Talk:Edward_Snowden#Verax_film - I kindly ask you to participate in the discussion if you still believe the film should not be mentioned. WhisperToMe (talk) 16:59, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
    • The so far only reply on the thread argues that one sentence about the film is enough. I am fine with this, so... WhisperToMe (talk) 20:36, 3 July 2013 (UTC)