Mikegrant

Beauchamp College

Hi there Mike, thanks for your edits to the Beauchamp College article. I can find no evidence anywhere that 'over half' of the college is made up of students from ethnic minorities. I'm sure you are aware that "Rich and diverse" can mean anything - it certainly doesn't act as proof that more than 50% of the school's population is non-white. If you are going to provide references, you need to make sure they stand up to scrutiny, just as though you are writing an academic essay. If you find a source that actually confirms this information, tell us where it was exactly, who said it and when. "A quote from the principle" wouldn't stand up in an essay ;)

In any case, I personally don't see what this information adds to the article and am tempted to remove it even if it is true - from your user page, it looks as though you have a bee in your bonnet! I thought I'd ask for your thoughts on this, see why you added it etc. So yeah, give my regards to Oadby Twrist 10:36, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey again Mike, cheers for your reply. I've done a bit of research, and I got this from Ofsted -

"There are almost identical numbers of boys and girls in the college. The student population is stable with very few joining or leaving part-way through the year. The majority of students are white, though there are significant numbers of Asian origin, notably Indian and Pakistani. There are, however, representatives of many different ethnic backgrounds at the college. The percentage for whom English is not the mother tongue is very high but only a few are at the early stages of learning English. A smaller than average proportion of students has identified special educational needs although the proportion with statements of need is broadly average."

So it looks like it might be 'nearly 50%' rather than 'over 50%' - I might just quote directly from that in the article, actually. I've got too much time on my hands, I admit ;) Take care Twrist 13:49, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for increasing the WDEFCON.--Seadog.M.S 20:07, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

VandalSniper

Thanks for applying to use VandalSniper. Unfortunately, I have the burden of telling you "sorry, not quite yet". You haven't been added to the approved users list yet because we would like to wait and see more edits from you. Although the requirements to use VS are not set in stone, VandalSniper is a fast, fully-featured reversion tool with the potential for a sizable amount of edits in a short period of time, so this decision must sometimes be meticulous; I hope you understand. Your interest in VS is greatly appreciated, and you are invited to apply after you've made a few more edits. The reason you have not been approved yet says nothing about your value as a contributor – only that we'd like to see a little more of your work on Wikipedia before giving access to the tool.

Again, thanks so much for your interest. If you have any questions or concerns about this decision, feel free to contact me and I will be more than happy to discuss it with you. Again, thank you for helping "keep Wikipedia clean". Good luck, and happy editing! -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 17:19, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikifun

Round 14 is starting just about now. --Spondoolicks 16:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Nintendo Page Redesign

A new page design is being considered for the WikiProject Nintendo page. A rough draft can be viewed here. Please add all comments and thoughts to the discussion. From the automated, Anibot 22:51, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of BluejackQ

An editor has nominated BluejackQ, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BluejackQ (2nd nomination) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 07:59, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

New deal for page patrollers

Hi Mikegrant,

In order to better control the quality of new pages, keep out the spam, and welcome the genuine newbies, the current system we introduced in 2011 is being updated and improved. The documentation and tutorials have also been revised and given a facelift. Most importantly a new user group New Page Reviewer has been created.

Under the new rule, you may find that you are temporarily unable to mark new pages as reviewed. However, this is nothing to worry about - most current experienced patrollers are being accorded the the new right without the need to apply, and if you have significant previous experience of patrolling new pages, we strongly encourage you to apply for the new right as soon as possible - we need all the help we can get, and we are now providing a dynamic, supportive environment for your work.

Find out more about this exiting new user right now at New Page Reviewers and be sure to read the new tutorial before applying. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:29, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of BluejackQ for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article BluejackQ 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BluejackQ (3rd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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 notice from the top of the article. SITH (talk) 16:59, 27 November 2019 (UTC)