User talk:Dmms1971

Sarek
Does not need 1000k devoted to him. Also you do not link the words Sarek and Spock every time they are used. And learn to use the Show Preview button. Darrenhusted (talk) 13:54, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe the length is for you to decide. It is no longer than any of the other members of the cast. I also would appreciate you not deleting my contributions in the future for no good reason. Simply EDIT Sarek and Spock if you don't feel they should be linked. Dmms1971 (talk) 14:08, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

There is a Manual of Style; plus convention dictates that character / actor reporting does not go in a cast list. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 14:27, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That is, for minor characters, as Sarek is presented in this list. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 14:33, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the inconsistency. If you look at the page, the summary that I wrote is no different than the rest - a brief report on how he was cast in the role as well as the preparation techniques. If you read your own rules, you would see that. Whether or not the role is major or minor is irrelevant. I will be issuing a complaint to Wikipedia as neither of you have given a valid reason for deleting my contribution. Dmms1971 (talk) 15:03, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I will be issuing a complaint to Wikipedia? The section you added was not in keeping with the manual of style. Feel free to add it to Ben Cross' biography, as this role will now be his best known, and it will provide good background for that. However it does not belong on the Star Trek article. Darrenhusted (talk) 15:14, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Would you care to point out the inconsistency re the MOS? Also show me where the rest of the cast members do not have a summary as to how they were cast in the role and what they did to prepare. There is no reason why this cannot be posted on the bio page as well as the Star Trek page, and I will be sending my complaint. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmms1971 (talk • contribs)
 * Complain to whom? The FILM project would not endorse your addition, the STAR TREK project would not endorse the text. You were reverted by two separate users, and your only other contributions are to this page and Ben Cross, which would suggest to me that you don't want to contribute to the project as a whole but are acting as Ben Cross's agent. Or you may be Ben Cross. You act like a single purpose account, so any protestations would be given short shrift. Have you read the MOS? I doubt it, otherwise it would be obvious what you have done. I suggest you take time to read up on the policies and guidelines, and if you want you can refine the text I added to Ben Cross's bio, but I wouldn't edit the Star Trek film page again. Darrenhusted (talk) 15:46, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

You do not speak for FILM or the STAR TREK project do you? Unless you do, you are simply judging what they may or may not do. I'm still waiting for an answer to my question, which I have not been given. I am not Ben Cross nor am I his agent, but I do work on the administration team for his official website. Until I get an answer as to why 1000k (such a SMALL amount of space being in dispute is beyond me) cannot be devoted to his role in the film - a summary that is consistent with the rest of the cast, I'll proceed as follows. Dmms1971 (talk) 16:01, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I do work on the administration team for his official website, well then I suggest you stop all editing of any pages related to Ben Cross under a conflict of interest. Darrenhusted (talk) 16:58, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * It is NOT consistent with the rest of the cast. The role of Sarek in this cast list is relegated to a minor character-style listing.  As such, we do not include 1000Kb of extraneous information that would be better suited to the article about Ben Cross. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 17:11, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Also, we do not need permission from the FILM or the STAR TREK project to report on publicly available information found in independent and reliable sources. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 17:12, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Your ignorant statement demonstrates that you don't know the definition of a conflict of interest. If you do not wish to have people who have the knowledge and the ability to post accurate, reliable information for readers (me having the qualifications to post such information as opposed to the general public)then it's a wonder that Wikipedia has the reputation that it currently holds. What I have attempted to post was sourced, reliable and accurate information pertaining to his role in the film. You would have a case if it was undocumented or had the tone of promoting himself or his career. It was simply a brief summary which added value to the Star Trek film page. However, if you wish to deprive your readers of accurate information that adds value, I will make no further attempt to overturn your decision. My partner complied with your original request and shortened the length to one sentence, and you still deleted it, which touches on your honor/reputation as an editor. Dmms1971 (talk) 17:40, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Nothing is deleted on Wikipedia, just reverted. if you wish to deprive your readers I have no idea who you are addressing, as no one is depriving anyone of anything, you need to read up about what Wikipedia is. I moved the info to Ben Cross's bio, which is where it needs to be listed. As for your "partner" and you having the qualifications to post such information, first do not tag-team to avoid a 3RR, which is what you did, and secondly if the information you have is so important then anyone will be able to find sources to back it up, and if it is not easy to find then it cannot be on Wikipedia anyway. If you want to have th information on then you need to follow the guidelines, policies and manuals of style, if the information you wish to add is strong then you will find consensus, when I referenced FILM and TREK it was to give you directions to a forum which can hear your case and evaluate it, however as you have less than 50 edits, have already declared a COI and are ignoring the rules (but not in a good way) then I know that most editors will not side with your addition. And size is important as WP operates as a not-for-profit enterprise, and has to raise money to run the servers and bandwidth for this site, all of which costs money, I may edit this site for free but someone is paying, and that someone is not Ben Cross. Darrenhusted (talk) 18:08, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Sir/madam...as I don't know to whom I'm speaking. I regret having wasted this much of my time on something so minor. For the record, I nor anyone professionally affiliated with Ben Cross will not make any more attempts to edit the Star Trek page or even Ben Cross' bio page. In that case, you will be able to save your much needed bandwith. We have absolutely no interest in this site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmms1971 (talk • contribs)

May 2009
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Darrenhusted (talk) 14:41, 19 May 2009 (UTC)