heyhey Hey says thank you to wknight94

Please do not deliberately introduce incorrect information into articles. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:05, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HI HEYHEY HEY ITS ME CHINCHOI :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chinchoi (talk • contribs) 03:24, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

original research

Hi Heyhey Hey, you wrote

Is there a problem with orignal research? As far as I know, there is none

Actually, it is a problem; see WP:OR. To make the statement, it needs to be shown that the enrollment information is complete and comes from the same data set. I couldn't find anything on Google that explicitly states Carmel's the largest, but you might have better luck. Until then, I've reverted back to an edit that makes the less-strong claim that it is "one of" the largest. Cmprince 20:20, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vikas Vavilala

The article Vikas Vavilala has been speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This was done because the article seemed to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it did not indicate how or why the subject is notable, that is, why an article about that subject should be included in Wikipedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert notability may be deleted at any time. If you can indicate why the subject is really notable, you are free to re-create the article, making sure to cite any verifiable sources.

Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, and for specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. -- Gogo Dodo 05:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your creation of user pages for those without

Please do not create user pages for the editors that do not have one. Those editors have elected not to have a user page for whatever reason, so you should not create one for them. Thanks. -- Gogo Dodo 05:29, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits to the user pages of Bkonrad and Rdsmith4

Please do not edit the user pages of other contributors without their approval or consent. It may be seen as vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please visit the sandbox. -- Gogo Dodo 05:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 04:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Carmel School disambiguations

You reverted my consolidations. I fail to see how three pages is better than one (with redirects). The purpose of redirects and disambiguations is to make it easier for the reader. Now they have potentially two clicks instead of one. —Moondyne 04:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pleased about that :). Where you are, the distinction between college, high school and school is (I think) more defined and distinct. Here (Australia and many other places also I suspect), 'college' and 'high school' are interchangeable terms - both refer to secondary schools years 8 to 12 (ages 13 to 17). (Although more usually 'college' refers to high schools offering the final 2 years, but not necessarily exclusively). A trend has been happening here for the last few years with some high schools rebadging themselves as colleges, so there is a move towards more widespread use of the term in a similar way as it is used in the US. 'School' can be used to refer to either primary or secondary schools. Indeed the College article describes the regional differences in some detail. Its all very confusing.

Having said all of that, it does reaffirm my thoughts that one disambiguation page with redirects would be better than three. —Moondyne 03:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User Chat

Lookie I used 4 tilde mark thingies :) So wassup? ChinChoi (talk) 03:40, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:22, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]