Talk:Anna Gunn

Biography: Actors and Filmmakers Start‑class

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers.

United States: New Mexico Start‑class

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	New Mexico portal This article is supported by WikiProject New Mexico.

File:Anna Gunn 2010 cropped.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Anna Gunn 2010 cropped.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests August 2011

What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 16:54, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Personal Life

IMDB says Gunn divorced her husband in 2009. Can anybody confirm this? 176.61.94.25 (talk) 23:09, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Citations lacking

The page for this actress does not read as an encyclopaedic entry with proper citation along statements but reads like a PR piece. There are far too many citations lacking and the language reads as thou one of her agents or representatives wrote it. Solidzz (talk) 19:30, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not a registered user of Wikipedia, but I came onto the talk page just to see if anyone else had noticed. It looks as if she wrote it herself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.0.225.216 (talk) 04:09, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're almost exactly right: It came virtually verbatim from her press-release bio from her publicity agency, Nancy Seltzer & Associates. It also appears at IMDb, here. Aside from WP:COPYVIO, it was blatant WP:TONE, WP:COI and POV vios. Anna Gunn deserves a proper, encyclopedic biography. --Tenebrae (talk) 12:42, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored the last proper version. The press-release bio was added by SPA [1] on March 5, who has made no other edits to Wikipedia. --Tenebrae (talk) 12:53, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

CC of post at User talk:Equitytester

I see you only have edited Wikipedia on a limited basis, so it's understandable you might not be aware of policies involving reverts and edit-warring. The general protocol is at WP:BRD, which states that when a bold edit is reverted that your next step is to go to the article's talk page and discuss the issue rather than re-reverting. In this case, at Anna Gunn, you've removed what most editors would consider a notable fact about an actor, that she wrote a New York Times op-ed piece. Very few actors do this in a newspaper considered one of the world's most notable and important. Given that this fact has remained stable in the article for some time, it is your responsibility when reverted to explain why you have a different opinion than that of multiple other editors. Simply stating in an edit summary your personal opinion that it is not notable, without giving reasons why, is insufficient.

I appreciate your understanding and I hope we can discuss this on the talk page as collegial editors without having to ask for admin intervention. With thanks, Tenebrae (talk) 16:47, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree that her op-ed is notable. I am removing that portion and perhaps others can discuss here. Equitytester (talk) 20:41, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]