User talk:Smdigitalpartners

Speedy deletion nomination of Rosarian Academy


A tag has been placed on Rosarian Academy requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article or image appears to be a clear copyright infringement. This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://www.rosarian.org/page.cfm?p=10. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website or image but have permission from that owner, see Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Bgwhite (talk) 05:51, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Your account has been blocked from editing Wikipedia with this username. This is because your username, Smdigitalpartners, does not meet our username policy. '''Your username is the only reason for this block. You are welcome to choose a new username (see below) and continue editing.''' A username should not be promotional, related to a "real-world" group or organization, misleading, offensive or disruptive. Also, usernames may not end in the word "bot" unless the account is an approved bot account. You are encouraged to choose a new account name that meets our policy guidelines and create the account yourself. Alternatively, if you have already made edits and you wish to keep your existing contributions under a new name, then you may request a change in username by:
 * Adding on your user talk page. You should be able to do this even though you are blocked, as you can usually still edit your own talk page. If not, you may wish to contact the blocking administrator by clicking on "E-mail this user" on their talk page.
 * At an administrator's discretion, you may be unblocked for 24 hours to file a request.
 * Please note that you may only request a name that is not already in use, so please check here for a listing of already taken names. The account is created upon acceptance, thus do not try to create the new account before making the request for a name change. For more information, please see Changing username.

If you think that you were blocked in error, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Alexf(talk) 21:02, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Reply to email
Thanks for email. Two separate issues here. The block is because your user name matches that of a commercial company, and is not permitted. Alexf has indicated that you should be allowed to create a new account, since the article was not about your company (which would have led to a ban on account formation too), just follow the procedure in the box above.

I accept that the article is no longer a copyright violation, and I'll restore it soon. There are some problems with the article which could lead to deletion on other grounds, and I strongly suggest that you address the points below to avoid future difficulties.
 * it did not provide adequate independent verifiable sources to enable us to verify the facts and show that it meets the notability guidelines. Although you gave references, they are a heap of bare urls at the bottom, so we don't know what fact each is supporting. Put your references in the the text following the fact each supports using . Then    at the end will automatically generate a numbered list
 * Articles must be neutral and encyclopaedic. This was written in a promotional tone, with considerable use of weasel words and unsourced claims such as ''The school’s enrollment doubled... vast expansion of the school... influx of students... well-known families...important members... important accreditations... remarkable stage productions... transformed greatly... state-of-the-art... famed Broadway producer... first school in Florida to implement.

I'm watching this page now so you can reply here. I'll remove the tag from the article, but I'll watch it for the time being so see if the problems are fixed. Jimfbleak - talk to me?  15:06, 16 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I've made these edits, mainly formatting and mos Jimfbleak - talk to me?  15:19, 16 April 2015 (UTC)