User talk:Corexdefender

Boarding Life
The worst part about being a student at a boarding school, is that someone was inevitably going to troll Wikipedia... So my IP is blocked... And back up again, this will happen more often then not...

Please fill out our brief Teahouse guest survey
Hello fellow Wikipedian, the hardworking hosts and staff at WP:Teahouse would like your feedback! We have created a brief survey meant to help us better understand the experience of new editors on Wikipedia. You are being selected to participate in our survey because you edited the Teahouse Questions or Guests pages sometime in the last few months.

Click here to be taken to the survey site.

The survey should take less than 10 minutes to complete. We really appreciate your feedback, and we look forward to your next vist to the Teahouse!

Happy editing,

J-Mo, Teahouse host

This message was sent via Global message delivery on 00:28, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Please don't remove others' comments, or comments that have been replied to, from talk pages
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Talk:Martin Billany, is considered bad practice, even if you meant it well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. —C.Fred (talk) 00:15, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Martin Billany for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Martin Billany is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Martin Billany until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:48, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Promotional editing
Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia. While objective prose about beliefs, products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not intended to be a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion. Saying that your intention is "increasing the knowledge of Abridged Series through the use of Wikipedia articles" amounts to saying that you are intending to use Wikipedia to publicise the series, which is promotional editing, and contrary to Wikipedia policy. It is, unfortunately, a very common mistake to think that "anyone can edit Wikipedia" means "anyone can edit Wikipedia in any way they like, including using it to publicise a subject they want to make better known", but that is a misunderstanding. You are very welcome to contribute to Wikipedia in a neutral way, but not to use it for publicity purposes. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:56, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I had no intention of promotional editing. I was making the information known. Corexdefender (talk) 10:28, 6 June 2012 (UTC)


 * "Making the information known" is promotion. Wikipedia is, speaking loosely, here as a repository of things that are already known, not a place to make new things known. To take an example, Wikipedia has many articles about famous people but it's not the right place to write an article to make somebody famous. Dricherby (talk) 12:55, 6 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Once again i mistyped what i meant to say was make the information, which is already known, available. Corexdefender (talk) 00:20, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Editing in deletion discussions
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Martin_Billany. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted or removed. Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Editing your comments days after they were made, by altering a statement after it has been criticized is not acceptable, not least because it makes the user who criticized your stance look absurd as it now looks like he criticized you "for something you never said". Changing your mind is fine but please do it by adding a new comment, not by editing an old one. In general, old comments should only be edited to correct typos and similar, and definitely not to change things that have already been replied to. Unless you are just correcting a typo, the old text should be retained and struck out so that other users can see the change. Dricherby (talk) 08:33, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.


 * OK, I see now that the problem was not editing an old comment but inserting a new comment in the middle of the discussion. Since it appeared between two comments from 23rd May, I assumed your new comment was from then, too, and had been edited later.  It can be a bit tricky working out where to put things but, in general, people expect to find the newest comments at the bottom (and, likewise, new sections in talk pages go at the bottom).  As a rule of thumb, you shouldn't add new comments above older ones at the same level of indentation.  It's fine if that means the structure of the thread becomes something like
 * Original comment
 * First reply
 * Discussion of reply
 * More discussion
 * Second reply to original comment

That's much easier to follow than
 * Original comment
 * Second reply to original comment
 * First reply
 * Discussion of reply
 * More discussion

because it preserves the chronology better. Dricherby (talk) 09:34, 27 May 2012 (UTC)