User talk:Karendawn1

Bruce Greenwood
There is an article for him, which give the biographical information. As the film is out no one knows how large a role he has, and as the page is already very large it seems pointless to pad out his section if he is merely a featured extra. If his role is larger then is can be expanded, but as the main cast is already 8 strong it is best to leave it out for the moment. Any production details can be worked in to the article elsewhere. Darrenhusted (talk) 23:08, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I understand that you know Bruce. And if you want to add the information that he states about the production of Star Trek then it would need to be worked into the body of the production section, with quotes attributed to him. However as no one has yet seen the film it is impossible for anyone to determine how much space he should have on what is already, pre-release, a bloated article. I doubt that Cpt Pike will appear for anything other than a few minutes. He is not a member of the main cast. The main cast (Kirk, Spock, McCoy, Scotty, Uhura, Chekov and Sulu) have expanded sections because even if everyone but Kirk gets thirty seconds screen time they are the crew of the Enterprise. Pike is a previous captain, and his role may be nothing more than a cameo. Secondly if I don't revert it then someone else will, for the same reasons. Wikipedia is awash with Trek fans and all of them will have that page watchlisted, and all will tell you the same. The article is too big at the moment and an expanded section for a cameo role is not needed. As an aside I have trimmed your article, as a matter of etiquette I would encourage you, or anyone you know, to refrain from editing it, if you have editing suggestions for that page then create a user subpage or take it up on the discussion page for your article. Darrenhusted (talk) 00:12, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Your article
The information I removed was not needed in the article. The list of celebrity endorsements looks like trying to make you look notable because of who you know, and notability is not inherited. The external links should be sorted down the bottom and not linked at each mention. If you have written an article it goes down the bottom, not interlinked to the title in a sentence. I'm also not suggesting that you start a page for DawnWatch, link it at the bottom of the article, not in the opening paragraph, as that makes this article look like an advert. I would suggest that you read WP:NOT, which will show you what Wikipedia is not. If you are notable then your article will stay, and I do not expect that any reasonable, experienced editor would allow any of the information I took out back in. However I would expect your article to be tagged for deletion soon. The COI tag was removed too quickly, and my edits will stop it being re-tagged, however if any of the information I removed is put back in then the COI tag will be re-added and I expect a deletion process started soon after. Darrenhusted (talk) 11:30, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Your page
To address you concerns. There are guidelines which Wikipedia is run by. To address the revsion history of your article, shown here. The top four contributors have done nothing else on Wikipedia other than edit your article (which included yourself up until yesterday). Wikipedia frowns on people trying to use Wikipedia for self promotion. The edit I made was to remove anything which could be interpreted in that way. In the lead there was a direct link to your website, which is not appropriate for a bio. Then in the article each mention of an article was directly linked in this manner, again this is not appropriate, unless you are trying to up the hit count on those pages. An editor with over 12,000 edits placed a COI tag on the page. This was removed without any editing. I had two options when I looked at the page, add the COI tag along with a Cleanup and Advert tag (as the article contained elements written like an advert) or to edit out the information. I chose the second.
 * You stated that I "saw fit go [your] personal page". Although the article is about you it is not your page. The warning a the bottom of every Wikipedia page states "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it". The guideline for living persons is at this page. I understand that you feel that my edit was harsh, and there is an Admin noticeboard at that page where you can bring up your concerns.

As for "the threats", there is no malice intended in anything I have said, I am simply stating that all articles have to meet notability guidelines and that your page may not, even with my edit being reverted. My edit is consistent with all my edits, I have nothing invested in you page staying or being deleted, however it has a better chance of staying if it written to fit with the manual of style and if you (or anyone associated with you) do not make direct edits but instead declare an interest and use the talkpage to request edits. If anything libellous were added to the page then I would remove that in the same manner. Darrenhusted (talk) 15:20, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Reply
Karen, I reverted one edit on Star Trek, I made one edit to Karen Dawn then posted my reasons on the talkpage and I have endeavoured to reply to all your questions complete with relevant wikilinks. My statement about deletion is simply stating a fact, if one editor saw a COI in 2 days then it is inevitable that another used will tag it for deletion, but to avoid that it is best to make the article fit the MOS, which is what I did. Darrenhusted (talk) 15:30, 25 March 2009 (UTC)