User talk:Runjik23

Welcome!

Hello, Runjik23. I saw your contributions and want to welcome to you the free encyclopedia anyone can edit.

Thank you for joining our community and becoming a Wikipedian. I hope you like the place and decide to stay.

If you need help, see Wikipedia:Questions or our tutorial. Last but not least, the five pillars of Wikipedia explain what we're all here to do.

Happy editing! XLinkBot (talk) 14:02, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

December 2011

Hello! I'm a bot created by another Wikipedia editor. I wanted to let you know that I removed a link that you recently added to the page Michael Wincott here. I did this because http://www.facebook.com/pages/Michael-Wincott-actor-/163316623740797 is probably inappropriate for an encyclopedia.

We appreciate your help in making Wikipedia better for everyone. If I made a mistake, feel free to undo my edit. If you have any questions, you can ask at the Help desk.

Thank you! --XLinkBot (talk) 14:02, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Runjik23, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for registering an account. I hope you like the place and decide to stay.   Introduction  5   The five pillars of Wikipedia   How to edit a page   Help   Tips   How to write a great article   Manual of Style   Be Bold   Assume Good faith   Get adopted

If you need help, ask me on my talk page, or get instant online help at IRC. You can also place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will come shortly to answer your questions.

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:32, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

WP:VANDTYPES

Removing all or significant parts of a page's content without any reason, or replacing entire pages with nonsense. Sometimes referenced information or important verifiable references are deleted with no valid reason(s) given in the summary. However, significant content removals are usually not considered to be vandalism where the reason for the removal of the content is readily apparent by examination of the content itself, or where a non-frivolous explanation for the removal of apparently legitimate content is provided, linked to, or referenced in an edit summary.

Blanking that could be legitimate includes blanking all or part of a biography of a living person. Wikipedia is especially concerned about providing accurate and unbiased information on the living; blanking may be an effort to remove inaccurate or biased material. Due to the possibility of unexplained good-faith content removal, {{uw-test1}} or {{uw-delete1}}, as appropriate, should be used as initial warnings for content removals without more descriptive edit summaries.

Michael Wincott

I have seen you remove most of the content about Michael Wincott. Since that content didn't cite any reliable independent sources, you were completely right to remove it. That said, you should be aware that in general, the subject's wishes do not determine the content of an article - if we had reliable sources discussing Wincott in some detail, and content based on those sources, removing it would be considered disruptive at best, vandalism at worst, no matter if the subject has authorized the removal or not.

There's a second, somewhat related problem: Wikipedia has notability guidelines, and only topics satisfying those guidelines should be covered by articles. The basic criterion is "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". As I sad, the article's sources were not reliable (IMDb) or independent (his own website), so it's currently not clear that Wincott meets the notability criteria. For an actor with a career of almost 30 years I would expect that such coverage exists; it should be added (and its content summarized!) in the article. As it stands, however, the page could be nominated for deletion.

A third issue is the image, File:Michael Wincott, Paris, 2014.jpg. You claimed in your fair use rationale that the image cannot be replaced because "This is an official sanctioned "head shot" of this actor. Any other images of him are stills from films and are not suitable for identification purposes." That's not a valid rationale. Someone could meet him on the street tomorrow, take his photo, and release that under a free license - and we'd have a freely licensed image of him. Not even Kim Jong Un was considered enough of a recluse that we couldn't expect a freely licensed image of him to be created, and I doubt Wincott is more of a recluse than Kim. If you know of (or can provide) an image of Wincott that has been released under a free license that allows everybody to re-use and modified for any purpose, including commercial purposes, that would be great. We cannot, however, accept non-free images of living persons. Huon (talk) 20:51, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Michael Wincott, Paris, 2014.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Michael Wincott, Paris, 2014.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the file description page and add the text {{di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
2. On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. kelapstick^(bainuu) 19:34, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Famousbirthdays.com as a source

Hi Runjik23. I noticed that you recently used famousbirthdays.com as a source for information in a biography article, Michael Wincott. Please note that there is general consensus that famousbirthdays.com does not meet the reliable sourcing criteria for the inclusion of personal information in such articles. (See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_153#Is_famousbirthdays.com_a_reliable_source_for_personal_information). If you disagree, let's discuss it. Thanks. --Ronz (talk) 18:21, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Conflict of interest policy

Hello, Runjik23. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

• avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, company, organization or competitors;
• propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (see the {{request edit}} template);
• disclose your COI when discussing affected articles (see WP:DISCLOSE);
• avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
• do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Also please note that editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. --Ronz (talk) 18:38, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Edits to Michael Wincott on August 20, 2019

Hi Runjik23.

I have reverted the edits you made on August 20^th. Not only did you remove material that was already cited with references, but the way in which you removed the material also caused formatting errors in the References section. It was also noted that in your edit summary you stated that your edits were made "per Mr. Wincott's request."

As per the message posted to your talk page by the editor Huon regarding some edits you made in 2014: "the subject's wishes do not determine the content of an article."

You may also recall my response to your post on the talk page for Michael Wincott's article back in 2018 where I pointed out that Wikipedia has policies regarding verifiability and notability, and these policies involve having cited references from reliable sources.

In May of 2018 Ronz also let you know about Wikipedia's conflict of interest policy. There is also information about Wikipedia's policy on Biographies of Living Persons that includes a section about subjects who wish to edit articles about themselves. I think it's safe to assume that you have a working relationship with Wincott given that Runjik Productions is the name of the company that runs Wincott's official website. Please do take some time to inform yourself on these policies and to perhaps share this information with Mr. Wincott.

Going forward, should you wish to change information that is already supported by an existing reference in this article, please first post a message to the article's talk page to discuss what you think you should be changed and why, along with one or more references that support your changes. If you wish to add any new information it should be added with properly formatted reference while being very careful not to make any changes to the wiki markup that might affect the page's formatting.

You also have the option to post an edit request or suggestion on the article's talk page so that another more experienced editor may assist in adding the information, but you would also need to also point the editor to reliable sources for said information.

BTW: I've also noted other edits to this page by a different editor on both the 19^th and 20^th that have yet to be reviewed. Should any of the information contradict the existing references they will be reverted as well.

Regards Marchije•^speak/_peek 22:06, 20 August 2019 (UTC)