Talk:Anna Gunn/Archive 1

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)

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)

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)


 * 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)


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

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)

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)


 * That's not the way Wikipedia works, and if you continue to make contentious, POV edits, I will ask for admin intervention. I tried to be understanding above because you haven't edited Wikipedia much, but you cannot simply remove material based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:29, 29 January 2014 (UTC)