User talk:Kozitt

October 2009

Welcome!

Hello, Kozitt, 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!

--Dister304 (talk) 18:01, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Wintour

This is OK. We don't use IMdB as a source since anyone can add stuff, especially to the trivia sections (we've been burned by stuff from those before).

Personally, I don't think the mere existence of The September Issue needs to be cited ... I haven't been sure if a separate section devoted to it is needed; I don't think so and in fact I'll remove it since so far it hasn't been a defining moment for her like The Devil Wears Prada was (or, more accurately, the way Pumping Iron was for Arnold Schwarzenegger). I already put a graf in the 2000s section about it and a mention in the intro ... I think that's enough. But, I'll reserve judgement till I've had a chance to see the film (i.e., on DVD)

If it weren't for that film coming out when it did I'd have nominated it for FA by now. Daniel Case (talk) 22:01, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was under the impression that we don't use the user-added content of IMDb as a source, but that the edited and maintained content is OK, if questionable.

I had thought so too (there's an argument for considering the credits and rating info more reliable than the rest, I think, as the "Citing IMdB" proposal I linked to made clear) but it seems the preference is not to cite IMDB for anything, even if it is standard as well to include an xlink to it. Daniel Case (talk) 05:41, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Having seen The September Issue, I'll say that I personally consider it fabulous (if fabulousness were a Wikipedia standard, I'd nominate the soundtrack), but agree that it's not worthy of it's own section. Particularly when the section doesn't contain information in addition to previous mentions. Kozitt (talk) 02:59, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

May 2010

Thank you for your contributions. Please remember to mark your edits as "minor" only if they truly are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes, or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. I'm particularly looking at the edits here and the ones next to it, where you changed the content and marked it minor. II | (t - c) 03:37, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your point of view; however, the information on the web site that the information was cited to had changed, at which point I felt that the included information could be considered an "obvious factual error." I still believe that the change required no review and to my knowledge, it is the not the subject of a dispute even now. Kozitt (talk) 18:19, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]