Talk:Studyhall

Inline citations
The article currently has only one inline citation. The other references aren't explicitly associated with specific bits of text, so I'm reinstating the no footnotes tag within the ' Features References ' section. I hope this makes sense. -- Trevj (talk) 14:41, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Trevj. Wouldn't more footnotes be more correct here, as it has *one*? — Theo polisme  21:17, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Yes, that's probably the one I should've used at the top. Sorry. So it's either a case of replacing tags or just keeping with the 'no footnotes' in the refs section... until someone checks through the refs and tidies things, of course! -- Trevj (talk) 21:49, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Heh, yes. I'll get to sorting things out later today, if I have a chance...otherwise, I may just have to argue a certain policy in my defense. :) — Theo polisme  21:51, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi everyone. I am trying to improve the inline citations in the article. Do you have advice as to exactly how many I should include? I have tried to back up most of the information. Also, is there any way to help the article meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines? Thank you for all you do in maintaining Wikipedia and helping others improve articles. Amj55 (talk) 19:44, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I've taken care of the citations and the notability tag. Cheers, — Theo polisme  19:54, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much! 68.55.150.80 (talk) 17:39, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest
Hi Everyone. Thanks for all you do. I am the intern who created the article. I declared my affiliation with Studyhall and was helped by people in Tea house, and then the article was moved to article space so I figured everything was fine. Is there anything I can do about the flags on the article page about my conflict of interest? Thanks so much for your guidance! Amj55 (talk) 21:28, 28 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I have removed the COI tag on the article itself for now. You have willingly declared it on your own, and seem very happy to work with us on how to improve the article. Thusly, the COI shouldn't be put out there for the average reader to see (in my opinion). You won't be able to get rid of the conflict, but you can certainly work around it, as you are willing to do. I can't really provide a lot of details on improvements right now, but more sources seem to be what some people want. Also, please beware that if you stop cooperating or otherwise anger another editor, they have the right to add the COI tag back. Thanks for being willing to work with us! gwickwire &#124; Leave a message 23:10, 28 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you so much! I am currently working on better sourcing. I really appreciate your help. Amj55 (talk) 23:54, 28 November 2012 (UTC)