User talk:Cat-five/Archive 2014

Your edit to Anna Wintour
To reiterate and elaborate on why I reverted this edit: first, those are things she's best-known outside of the fashion community for; and second, as far as I know there is nothing in BLP that sets some maximum distance for how far something in the intro can be substantiated (however, if you think we should have the citation for that there, I'd agree with that and make the change). Daniel Case (talk) 02:34, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * You are right about there being no maximum distance; however, the section relating to The Devil Wear's Prada, as well as the book and the film's articles, go to great pains to say that it isn't about here (mainly that everyone that has been asked and would know deny that it's about her). Obviously the book and film should be mentioned just as they are in the body of the article but not in the headline in a phrasing that suggests, for lack of a better term, innuendo. If nothing else those sentences in the lead needs to be expanded to clarify it in the context of the Devil Wears Prada section.  Cat-five t  c   07:44, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Looking back on it the lead section should probably be expanded and overhauled as it reflects the article as it was several years ago, when all that was fresher in people's minds. The point about DWP was that it was widely perceived, and marketed as, a character based on her, and the same connection was made in reviews of The September Issue. That ought to be cited. CTTOI, this would be a good year to do these things and get it to FA as she turns 65 in November. Daniel Case (talk) 07:53, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

 * Note: For my (or anyone else who may be interested's) records, User talk:Rsidel is the link for this conversation.  Cat-five t  c   08:39, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

POTD notification
Hi Cat-five,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Autorecessive.svg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on May 14, 2014. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2014-05-14. Thank you for all of your contributions! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:28, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Copyright checks when performing AfC reviews
Hello. This message is part of a mass mailing to people who appear active in reviewing articles for creation submissions. First of all, thank you for taking part in this important work! I'm sorry this message is a form letter – it really was the only way I could think of to covey the issue economically. Of course, this also means that I have not looked to see whether the matter is applicable to you in particular. The issue is in rather large numbers of copyright violations ("copyvios") making their way through AfC reviews without being detected (even when easy to check, and even when hallmarks of copyvios in the text that should have invited a check, were glaring). A second issue is the correct method of dealing with them when discovered. If you don't do so already, I'd like to ask for your to help with this problem by taking on the practice of performing a copyvio check as the first step in any AfC review. The most basic method is to simply copy a unique but small portion of text from the draft body and run it through a search engine in quotation marks. Trying this from two different paragraphs is recommended. (If you have any question about whether the text was copied from the draft, rather than the other way around (a "backwards copyvio"), the Wayback Machine is very useful for sussing that out.) If you do find a copyright violation, please do not decline the draft on that basis. Copyright violations need to be dealt with immediately as they may harm those whose content is being used and expose Wikipedia to potential legal liability. If the draft is substantially a copyvio, and there's no non-infringing version to revert to, please mark the page for speedy deletion right away using. If there is an assertion of permission, please replace the draft article's content with. Some of the more obvious indicia of a copyvio are use of the first person ("we/our/us..."), phrases like "this site", or apparent artifacts of content written for somewhere else ("top", "go to top", "next page", "click here", use of smartquotes, etc.); inappropriate tone of voice, such as an overly informal tone or a very slanted marketing voice with weasel words; including intellectual property symbols (™,®); and blocks of text being added all at once in a finished form with no misspellings or other errors. I hope this message finds you well and thanks again you for your efforts in this area. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC). Sent via--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

`