User talk:Jamesahitchcock

Speedy deletion nomination of Signature School


A tag has been placed on Signature School, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising that only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an acceptable page. Please read the general criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item G11, as well as the guidelines on spam.

If you can indicate why the subject of this page is not blatant advertising,. Clicking that button will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit |the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. You are welcome to edit the page to fix this problem, but please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. As well as removing promotional phrasing, it helps to add factual encyclopaedic information to the page, and add citations from independent reliable sources to ensure that the page will be verifiable. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Mean as custard (talk) 17:58, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Regarding Signature School
I took the speedy deletion tag off your article because (in my opinion) you've rewritten it enough that it doesn't warrant deleting anymore, at least not without some discussion. Well done. I should point out though that someone else could put the deletion tag back on if they feel it's still unusable, so this isn't necessarily the end of the matter. Cheers. --Richard Yin (talk) 18:35, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Fantastic--thanks so much. I'll keep finetuning it so it no longer just reads like an ad. Appreciate the help. Jamesahitchcock (talk) 18:46, 20 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I took a look at some of the external links you put in the article. You should probably know that we have a quite strict policy on material copied from other sources, including restrictions on close paraphrasing. I've removed content that I feel was against the copyright policy; you should probably write something to replace it. --Richard Yin (talk) 18:47, 20 October 2014 (UTC)


 * By the way, you mentioned in your first edit summary that you were rewriting the article because it'd been deleted. The original, in case you're interested, is available in the page history, specifically here. --Richard Yin (talk) 18:53, 20 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Awesome--I was looking for just that. I'm going to merge content from the two articles, because I think the previous was better written. Am I good to copy over elements from the former version? Why was that version deleted? Thanks again for the help. Jamesahitchcock (talk) 19:07, 20 October 2014 (UTC)


 * The deletion log shows that an administrator, who may not have seen the useful content in the page history, deleted the article as vandalism after someone turned it into this. After you started the new version another admin came by and restored the page history from the old article, which is why I was able to see the older versions. There shouldn't be any reason to avoid copying stuff over, as long as you avoid the nonsense that got it deleted. --Richard Yin (talk) 19:14, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * And by "after you started the new version" I mean like half an hour ago. Thanks Smartse! --Richard Yin (talk) 19:17, 20 October 2014 (UTC)


 * What charming edits. I've now reimplemented a lot of the information that was lost. Thanks to both Smartse and you for all the help! Jamesahitchcock (talk) 19:45, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * No worries. I stalk and saw your note there and had a look to see what happened. Happy editing! SmartSE (talk) 20:07, 20 October 2014 (UTC)