User talk:Coreyar

Welcome!
Hi, Coreyar. Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Our intro page contains a lot of helpful material for new users—please check it out! If you need help, visit Questions, ask me on my talk page, or. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 01:50, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Recent edit to Enzo Cilenti
Hello. I noticed that you made an edit that introduces praise or promotional language to the Enzo Cilenti article. On Wikipedia, we adhere to a neutral point of view (NPOV) and avoid promotional language or puffery. Please read the NPOV policy page, as well as this page of language to avoid to better understand how to expand this article in a style suitable to an encyclopedia. If you have questions, please see the Help Desk page. Thank you! ◢ 　Ganbaruby!　 03:26, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I've reverted a number of other similar edits for the same reason – pointless promotional puffery such as "the most prestigious and most selective officially accredited leading drama schools" has no place in an encyclopaedia. If you have some personal or professional connection to any of the topics you have written about, you should declare it; if you receive any financial reward from any of them, disclosure is obligatory. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:51, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia and copyright
Hello Coreyar, and welcome to Wikipedia. Your additions to Drama Studio London ‎ have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues.


 * You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
 * Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Close paraphrasing. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
 * Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Copyrights. You may also want to review Copy-paste.
 * If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Such a release must be done in a verifiable manner, so that the authority of the person purporting to release the copyright is evidenced. See Donating copyrighted materials.
 * In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are PD or compatibly licensed) it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at Media copyright questions, the help desk or the Teahouse before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
 * Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps in Translation. See also Copying within Wikipedia.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:39, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Copyright problem: Drama Studio London
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Drama Studio London, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images from either web sites or printed works. This article appears to contain work copied from https://www.thenationalstudent.com/Arts_and_Theatre/2016-10-07/talking-auditions-successes-and-50-years-with-drama-studio-london.html, https://theatreweekly.com/interview-kit-thacker-managing-director-of-drama-studio-london/, and therefore to constitute a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policies. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators are liable to be blocked from editing.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under license allowed by Wikipedia, then you should do one of the following:

It may also be necessary for the text be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.
 * Have the author release the text under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License (CC BY-SA 3.0) by leaving a message explaining the details at Talk:Drama Studio London and send an email with confirmation of permission to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". Make sure they quote the exact page name, Drama Studio London, in their email. See Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
 * If you hold the copyright to the work: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License and GNU Free Documentation License, and note that you have done so on Talk:Drama Studio London. See Donating copyrighted materials for instructions.
 * If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted "under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), version 3.0", or that the work is released into the public domain, or if you have strong reason to believe it is, leave a note at Talk:Drama Studio London with a link to where we can find that note or your explanation of why you believe the content is free for reuse.

See Declaration of consent for all enquiries for a template of the permissions letter the copyright holder is expected to send.

If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at [ this temporary page]. Leave a note at Talk:Drama Studio London saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved.

Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 14:02, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

August 2019
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at Emily Watson, you may be blocked from editing. Theroadislong (talk) 14:49, 24 August 2019 (UTC) You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on John Vickery (actor); that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
 * Hi, I am not in an editing war, but I am discussing all of this at the Tea House. User:Justlettersandnumbers on the other hand is in an editing war and has deleted everything without discussing it with me or allowing me to edit anything and he himself is refusing to discuss anything on the talk page which I have offered to do so many time.........and regarding the article of Emily Watson, I only added the word "classically" because it refers to a very specific way of training actors in the UK, please see my explanation on the talk page of User:Ganbaruby who came to a consensus on this with me before automatically removing all of this without discussing it with me........--Coreyar (talk) 14:56, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Points to note: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. SuperMarioMan (Talk) 14:50, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.


 * Hi, I am not in an editing war, but I am discussing all of this at the Tea House. User:Justlettersandnumbers on the other hand is in an editing war and has deleted everything without discussing it with me or allowing me to edit anything and he himself is refusing to discuss anything on the talk page which I have offered to do so many time.........--Coreyar (talk) 14:53, 24 August 2019 (UTC)


 * No, it is you who are edit-warring by repeatedly adding "classically" to various BLPs when you know that other editors disagree with you. If this continues, you will be blocked from editing. SuperMarioMan (Talk) 14:56, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

''
 * , I only added the word "classically" because it refers to a very specific way of training actors in the UK, please see my explanation on the talk page of User:Ganbaruby who came to a consensus on this with me before and kindly discussed this objectively with me giving me a chance as a new editor to explain myself........is User:Justlettersandnumbers allowed to add red links and inaccurate unsourced information to an article, which he has done and refused to discuss on the talk page? I thought that in itself violated Wikipedia policies?--Coreyar (talk) 14:59, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I know what "classically trained" means. But Wikipedia articles are meant to be written from a neutral point of view, not to promote their subjects. Promotional edits like this, this and this go against our editing guidelines. Persistently making such edits is disruptive and will lead to loss of editing privileges. SuperMario<b style="color: #FF6F00;">Man</b> (Talk) 15:16, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
 * , How is the word "classically" disruptive or promotional? I already explained this to User:Ganbaruby who came to a consensus on this with me and I would gladly discuss this with you as well. By no means do I mean to add puffery as a new editor....I thought the word "classically" was a neutral word that I can use (because it distinguishes UK drama training to US drama training that focus on specific methods instead of classical training) and it is widely used for all top FDS accredited drama school in the UK....I thought Wikipedia was an encyclopedia free for all to edit....--Coreyar (talk) 15:19, 24 August 2019 (UTC)


 * As you are continuing to edit-war on multiple articles and have shown no sign of slowing down, I have blocked your account for 31 hours – please see below. When the block expires, use the article talk pages to reach consensus with other editors. If you resume edit-warring and/or editing promotionally, the next block may be indefinite. <b style="color: #FF0F00;">Super</b><b style="color: #FF3F00;">Mario</b><b style="color: #FF6F00;">Man</b> (Talk) 15:30, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for edit warring, as you did at Emily Watson. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. <b style="color: #FF0F00;">Super</b><b style="color: #FF3F00;">Mario</b><b style="color: #FF6F00;">Man</b> (Talk) 15:24, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Promotional trumpery Comment
In your edit summary here you say "Firstly, I do not understand how removing the word "the" is "ridiculous trumpery" since the drama school is called "Drama Studio London" or "DSL", not "The Drama Studio London"..Secondly, the world "classically" only refers to the traditional way that FDS accredited top Drama Schools in the UK train their actors....by no means does this word intend to add puffery..I have discussed this with you on my talk page and with User:Ganbaruby who came to a consensus on this." I reverted your edit because you added the content "prestigious London-based Drama School" which is clearly promotional trumpery. Theroadislong (talk) 15:52, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Words of advice
Woah, what did I just wake up to. You may be feeling frustrated and misunderstood right now, which is definitely understandable. While it is true that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia everyone can edit, editors are expected to follow the many policies and guidelines that govern this site. I'm not saying that the content you added is false, but just because something is true does not mean it belongs on Wikipedia, for a number of possible reasons. Many experienced editors that you'll deal with have many, many years of experience under their belt, so it is best to not edit war. Wikipedia also is very conscious about copyright because of some past incidents. From what I know, you seem like a genuinely nice guy/girl passionate about theater, and that's great! Wikipedia needs more people like you to edit its articles and fill in the cracks of knowledge. You just need to understand how you can do that here. I would suggest using the many resources for beginners. I see you found the Teahouse, maybe also utilize the this tutorial or The Wikipedia Adventure. Last but not least, if you have any questions, feel free to reach out me, I'll be happy to listen. Happy editing! ◢ 　Ganbaruby!　 15:57, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Help
Hello there. You might be feeling frustrated at this time as you have been blocked for edit warring and you might not feel treated fairly at the Teahouse. We really appreciate new editors, especially those who want to help build and improve our encyclopedia, as you have been doing. That isn’t to say we don’t have rules, some have been mentioned to you. I strongly suggest you take the time to complete the Tutorial or the Wikipedia Adventure so that you can edit without being reverted. I hope that helps, and I do hope you continue to edit here at Wikipedia. Best wishes, Willbb234Talk (please &#123;&#123;ping&#125;&#125; me in replies) 17:03, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Let me start by echoing the fine advice offered by Willbb234. I've taken the quick glance at the thread on the teahouse and the posts on this page. I understand it may feel like people are ganging up on you, but if you try and read this talk page with an open mind (pretend you are some of the person seeing this page for the first time), you will note that the talk page starts with a welcome. Subsequent posts are politely noting that you violated some of our rules and offering polite advice on how to improve. I've often run into brand-new editors who are devastated when they find a large section of material has been removed moved for copyright reasons and suggest that a better approach would be for editors to point out the problems and help fix it rather than just remove it, but it is always been our policy to immediately remove copyright violations as soon as they are noticed. Some subsequent messages on your talk page are a little bit more sternly worded, but that's because violations of policy are occurring after warnings have been given and ignored. Again, I can understand why your perspective may be that this feels like people are jumping all over you, but I've seen hostility in Wikipedia and this isn't remotely close. Please take a deep breath, and take the advice of Willbb234. Yes, we do have a lot of rules but just about every single one of them was developed for good reasons. Good luck. S Philbrick  (Talk)  20:32, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

FDS
FDS does not provide accreditation to its members. Content you added changed to "It is a member of the United Kingdom Federation of Drama Schools." David notMD (talk) 15:06, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually, they are Drama UK accredited schools that are members of FDS, so I will rephrase the sentences--Coreyar (talk) 19:53, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * As Drama UK no longer exists, writing about its past accreditation system will be counter-productive. Ditto adding the word "selective," as there is no reference to support that. David notMD (talk) 21:14, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

FDS - do you have a COI?
Are you in any way affiliated with the Federation of Drama Schools? David notMD (talk) 21:19, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Why would I be, ? Just because I like drama schools in the UK with a rich history and interesting organisation structure, and which are harder to get into than the likes of top US/Ivy League universities and Oxbridge, does not mean that I am "affiliated" with them........I find it very strange that you seem obsessed with every edit I make and feel the need to spend all your time on revoking everything I do, even very minor edits.....I would very much appreciate it if you would be less hostile and prejudicial towards me and let me edit things without revoking everything, which seems incredibly petty even though I'm sure you must be a very lovely person....I am very happy to discuss edits with you, but you seem rather hostile to let me do anything.--Coreyar (talk) 09:47, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * P.S. I will add references from now on to support my edits. Would very much appreciate it if you were open to discussion before making assumptions and revoking literally everything I do, since some of my edits that you revoke are even minor edits regarding sentence construction--Coreyar (talk) 09:54, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Coreyar, this is a discussion of your edits. The reason you're being asked whether you have a conflict of interest is that you are behaving exactly as if you did, even though you deny it. Any edit, by anyone, anywhere in the project, is subject to reversion at any time, so it's pointless to ask to be exempted from that. Unreferenced material is removed pretty much as a matter of course these days, so adding independent reliable sources to your edits may help them to "stick". Or of course you could start editing on some topic other than the Federation of Drama Schools ... Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:35, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi there, I am now adding references. I didn't know there was censorship on Wikipedia and a policy saying that you are not allowed to edit topics of your choice....? I will take that into account and will start editing about topics I am not interested in to show less of a "conflict of interest" to those that feel the need to scrutinise it....thank you for your thorough feedback, .--Coreyar (talk) 10:39, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Declining that you have a COI is sufficient. There are no 'Wikipedia police' investigating editors. The question was raised by Just and me because editors who write to only one topic (single purpose accounts, i.e., SPAs) are often either being paid or compensated in some way, or are connected to the organizations or people being written about. And yes, referencing should solve this debate. In the challenged edits you have used words such as "prestigious, accredited and selective" without any referencing. These are non-neutral per Wikipedia's guidelines, and thus reverted. David notMD (talk) 15:32, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I am just a learner,, but I do understand and respect your point. I appreciate your latest comment and clarification to me - thank you for that. Rest assured that I am definitely not being paid by anyone - I just like writing about those UK drama schools that are like the Ivy League of UK drama schools as I am just a huge theatre/acting/movie buff.--Coreyar (talk) 18:06, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * All good, and I expect Justlettersandnumbers accepts that there is no COI. What remains, is that regardless of the reputation of these schools, editors must find citations to support descriptions.David notMD (talk) 21:05, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Consensus is needed
Hi! I've removed your recent promotional additions to our articles on various UK drama schools – it should have been completely clear to you from your past attempts to introduce the same that other editors did not agree with them. Please don't add that stuff again without achieving consensus – i.e., agreement with other interested editors – on the talk-page of one or more of the articles. Please be aware that repeatedly re-adding material that has been removed can become disruptive, which can in turn lead to loss of editing privileges. Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:13, 24 September 2019 (UTC)