98:". 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 Knowledge before giving access to the tool.
278:
168:
22:
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 ;)
42:
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.
41:
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,
21:
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%
25:
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
241:
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
304:
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.
308:
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.
301:
190:
182:. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Knowledge's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "
49:
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
189:
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
75:
290:
237:
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
230:
is being updated and improved. The documentation and tutorials have also been revised and given a facelift. Most importantly a new user group
105:
and I will be more than happy to discuss it with you. Again, thank you for helping "keep
Knowledge clean". Good luck, and happy editing! --
258:
246:
147:
91:
254:
139:
317:
179:
294:
101:
Again, thanks so much for your interest. If you have any questions or concerns about this decision, feel free to
226:
In order to better control the quality of new pages, keep out the spam, and welcome the genuine newbies, the
110:
102:
227:
312:
70:
106:
204:
template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you.
36:
Hey again Mike, cheers for your reply. I've done a bit of research, and I got this from Ofsted -
143:
125:
200:
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the
209:
65:
167:
201:
194:
183:
151:
50:
27:
205:
285:
269:
175:
161:
324:
262:
213:
154:
128:
114:
80:
53:
30:
178:, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for
166:
302:
Knowledge:Articles for deletion/BluejackQ (3rd nomination)
191:
Knowledge:Articles for deletion/BluejackQ (2nd nomination)
283:
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article
245:
Find out more about this exiting new user right now at
253:
and be sure to read the new tutorial before applying.
289:
is suitable for inclusion in
Knowledge according to
94:. Unfortunately, I have the burden of telling you "
242:dynamic, supportive environment for your work.
146:. Please add all comments and thoughts to the
138:A new page design is being considered for the
8:
124:Round 14 is starting just about now. --
64:Thank you for increasing the WDEFCON.--
7:
228:current system we introduced in 2011
291:Knowledge's policies and guidelines
142:page. A rough draft can be viewed
134:WikiProject Nintendo Page Redesign
14:
300:The article will be discussed at
276:
1:
325:16:59, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
263:04:29, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
219:New deal for page patrollers
155:22:51, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
115:17:19, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
214:07:59, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
197:with four tildes (~~~~).
90:Thanks for applying to use
81:20:07, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
340:
255:MediaWiki message delivery
129:16:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
54:13:49, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
31:10:36, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
293:or whether it should be
174:An editor has nominated
193:and please be sure to
171:
150:. From the automated,
202:articles for deletion
184:What Knowledge is not
170:
140:WikiProject Nintendo
96:sorry, not quite yet
249:New Page Reviewers
234:has been created.
195:sign your comments
172:
160:AfD nomination of
232:New Page Reviewer
17:Beauchamp College
331:
322:
320:
315:
280:
279:
78:
73:
68:
339:
338:
334:
333:
332:
330:
329:
328:
318:
313:
311:
281:
277:
274:
221:
165:
136:
122:
88:
76:
71:
66:
62:
19:
12:
11:
5:
337:
335:
275:
273:
268:Nomination of
266:
223:Hi Mikegrant,
220:
217:
164:
158:
135:
132:
121:
118:
107:Omicronpersei8
87:
84:
61:
58:
57:
56:
47:
46:
45:
18:
15:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
336:
327:
326:
323:
321:
316:
306:
303:
298:
296:
292:
288:
287:
271:
267:
265:
264:
260:
256:
252:
251:
250:
243:
240:
235:
233:
229:
224:
218:
216:
215:
211:
207:
203:
198:
196:
192:
187:
185:
181:
177:
169:
163:
159:
157:
156:
153:
149:
145:
141:
133:
131:
130:
127:
119:
117:
116:
112:
108:
104:
99:
97:
93:
85:
83:
82:
79:
74:
69:
59:
55:
52:
48:
43:
38:
37:
35:
34:
33:
32:
29:
23:
16:
310:
307:
299:
284:
282:
272:for deletion
248:
247:
244:
238:
236:
231:
225:
222:
199:
188:
173:
137:
126:Spondoolicks
123:
100:
95:
92:VandalSniper
89:
86:VandalSniper
63:
40:
24:
20:
148:discussion
103:contact me
286:BluejackQ
270:BluejackQ
176:BluejackQ
162:BluejackQ
60:Thank you
180:deletion
295:deleted
239:current
120:Wikifun
319:(talk)
186:").
152:Anibot
51:Twrist
28:Twrist
26:Oadby
206:BJBot
314:SITH
259:talk
210:talk
144:here
111:talk
77:.M.S
72:dog
67:Sea
297:.
261:)
212:)
113:)
257:(
208:(
109:(
44:"
39:"
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
