895:
today for them to post the statement, I agree with reasoning that she expressed with me today; anyone can change the page with little moderation (someone in this forum said that there are no moderators), and the only changes that seem to be looked at are the deletion of mass information. For some time, there was a line in there that I did not read that attempted to compare
Science to technology by boasting Technology HS's networking class against our computer training. There was one edit that I never even saw until looking back today that says "Pro's of Science High: None this school is a!!" that had lasted for a while. I do understand that what I submitted 2 years ago becomes your property, however I do not feel it is right for you to hold on to it if no one wants it. I am offended myself because with my simple request to ask you to delete it as per my administrator, you have twisted everything into a battle against free speech and the rights of Knowledge (XXG). Someone before said that this could be related to a living person, and I agree. This is a school in existence that is having untrue, and inappropriate statements written about it (see history) and that is nothing suitable to publish by a public site. I am sure that someone monitors the "Knowledge (XXG)" entry here regularly and could afford to clean it up when someone tries to put anything bad on it, but I, as a senior, do not have the time anymore to deal with this as more people are becoming attracted to the page recently, and neither does anyone else in the school. So since we must be technical, I shall bring up the deletion policy issues with the article
1016:, the lack of professionalism in trying to hurry and type a reply is itself a problem. If you don't have the time to send a thoughtful, considered response, then the wise thing to do would be to refrain from responding. It's basically an extension of the 10-second rule when you're angry. If your alleged school administrator wanted to convince people, it would behoove them to do a better job of responding effectively. Sure, anybody can make a typo, or forget to zip up their fly, accidents happen, pobody's nerfect, but there's still a responsibility to be professional. As to your claims of a reason to delete this article, they are not convincing. The COI problem in this case is minimal. If you can't make edits to it without bias, that is your problem, not the articles. The same goes with Vandalism. It happens all over Knowledge (XXG), every day in thousands of articles. So far, it hasn't destroyed the world yet, and I doubt it ever will. But it will likely remain an ongoing problem, not just for this subject, though high schools with the typical immaturity of teenagers do attract a lot of problems, but for almost any of them. If your school administration thinks there is a problem with its students though, perhaps it might be worthwhile to consider instructing the students as to the value of integrity, honesty, and not making vandal edits to Knowledge (XXG). This could be a great educational opportunity, teaching responsibility, not just complaining about a problem. Notability is still in discussion, but High schools are generally accepted as being notable.
985:: Well if that service is available and suggest that you either have that protection available to the page or do as requested by me and remove it. I will talk to my administrator tomorrow because the major issue is that students or maybe not even students but someone is posting things that even I know is not true. We have had incidents but ... well just read the history, the things that have been written on the page are not nearly a representation of the issues here. I'd think that there were people carrying guns around the school perimeter waiting on corners for people and trying to target students. I will not sit here on a regular basis with my mind just wondering "What is on that page" because in general you need more safeguards in the wikipedia. When I started using it, I do not think there were many users particularly in my community. Now there are alot more and not all of them have good intentions when using this site and I predict that you will sooner or later see that with more people placing opinions this site will become very inaccurate. I strongly advise all people who continue to vote in favor of keeping to review the school history. Me and someone else whom we have not tracked down are consistently fixing the page, and I am done with it after tomorrow. But this is my last day commenting on behalf of the school so I strongly suggest a thorough look at the quality of maintnance and protection on this page as well as others. KMB
812:: The comments made by some individuals within these responses are attempts to indicate tha we are asking for censure or to control this page, no one is naive and this is not the case. We just moved to this new location and have expeienced several issues. Individuals looking atthis schooland that included parents have called to ask about certain issues posted on this site which are student versions with misinformation of events or conditions here. We do not have a Web master who can spend time editing this page. We are working on our own new Webpage and must comply with district guidelines for posting and this takes time.
824:
or school board says. This is similar to buying a product. The reviews of actual buyers are much more helpful and relevant to whether I, as the consumer, should buy the product than what the manufacturer says. I can't imagine the school posting controversies and problems with the school on the school website, but parents need to know those kinds of things. This is just an example, I'm not implying anything about the school being discussed: If a school has a problem with violence, parents need to know. Are they going to read zbout that on a school website though? Not likely.
693:: While I'm a strong opponent on the notability of secondary schools, I must chime in with the rest in defense of the principle that the subjects of articles get veto power neither over the content nor the existence of related articles. I have no doubt that the high school's administration would have collective apoplexy over the notion that their social studies or English textbooks were subject to censorship by anyone named therein. Heck, if I was feeling bloodyminded enough, I'd forward a link to this AfD to the Newark media and see what they had to say over it.
379:. The content of the page is borderline, as I do think there's plenty of unsourced material that needs cleanup, but inherently, there's nothing wrong with it. Now as regards the school administration's actions, I assume you are a student there? Well, I do think your user name might be worth changing, but I don't see that many edits to the page from you. Did you edit under a different name? Doesn't matter anyway, if your school administration is pressuring you, your best bet is to see an attorney or your local ACLU.
404:
of username, this was created today due to the fact that the NPS IP address is blocked at my school from edits so I have edits from various IP's from wherever I worked on it at that moment. I will suggest that someone of authority in the school revise it such as a teacher or administrator however my instruction was to have it deleted. If this is rejected by you to be deleted I don't think that I am at fault because I did what was asked, but I must follow through with my order to avoid any problems.
710:. If an organization makes a request to have an article removed because they believe it to be defamatory, we ought to take that request seriously (for both legal and perceptual reasons); we need to either source any potentially defamatory material carefully or remove the material (perhaps reducing the article to a substub in the process). However, in this case it's hard to see how this article could be construed as defamatory at this point. I think we should
919:, I found it horribly wrong when I looked later in the day and saw that you referred to my administrator as a Yahoo because she was typing fast because I was becoming late to class meeting with her and helping to post it. The school does value education and what is being said on this page is "hype" about freedom of speech because you certainly would not want someone writing something malicious for the public to see regarding Knowledge (XXG). KB
318:: What a joke. Knowledge (XXG) now needs "authorization" to create articles? And you all of a sudden jump in with a "request" from the school to remove the article? I laughed when I read that. As it stands, the article contains a wealth of information that asserts its notability and has some damn nice images to accompany it. It needs sources, however, but that should not be hard to find for such a prominent school.
211:
the "moderator" for the page, I do not want to held accountable for any inaccuracies that I make accidentally, or any that anyone else makes that I cannot prove or disprove. The school has requested that it be removed and though it has gone beyond my direct power at this point, I am still being indirectly held responsible for it.
817:
enough of the commentary to know that this isnot about what may be good for our school but hype about rights and censure and anything else one wants to say about our motivation . What is good for
Knowledge (XXG) is an issue here and quite frankly the responsibility to act responsibly for this school is not yours.
860:
concerned about any such so-called "administrator" who believes the Bill of Rights to be "hype." If the school was genuinely concerned about acting responsibly (provided this is really an administrator speaking), they would bust this yahoo back to janitor and take a good, hard look at the quality of
894:
And I do not understand what reasoning you have to not delete it. I, unlike my administrators, am a supporter of the wikipedia project and I often spend time on the site learning about various things going link to link and having faith that hat I read is true. But after meeting with my administrator
598:
So, why are you saying that this article should be deleted exactly? Sourcing this article is a trivial matter, and in any case, not a reason to delete it. The content is not significantly objectionable in any way that I can see. Also, I think you'll find that the vast majority of high schools are
403:
The School is not necessarily punishing me or pressuring but when the content was discovered, I was asked and I explained how I created the page and occasionally made edits. Therefore, being the only in school source so far of the page, I was asked to just delete it all for the time being. In terms
266:
I couldn't care less what your school administrators think. They have absolutely no authority over
Knowledge (XXG). WE decide whether to keep or junk the article. I see nothing wrong with the article, so I don't want to delete it. If there is a copyright problem with anything, and you know about it,
906:
Notability: Schools in general are not notable. This one does have some significance, however there is no accurate history yet of the school on the page that explains the notability so there is no reason to keep it. The only thing on the page now is that it was in an old building and got a new one.
823:
In my honest opinion, what the students think about the school (besides the immature "Thiz skool suks" comments) should be a concern for the administration and interested parents. If I were a parent, looking for a school for my child, I would rather hear honest student opinions than what the school
816:
If an initial impressionof our school comes from an article on a site which appears to be a blog for anyone wishing to discuss the school then it can in our view be harmful to our students . There are other forums on the
Internet for this and students may say what they choose there . Ihave read
743:
Naturally! I think the main thing I'm saying is that we shouldn't expect outsiders to understand the proper
Knowledge (XXG) way to accomplish certain things, and shouldn't knee-jerk just because something isn't done the Knowledge (XXG) way. Some things (like protecting Knowledge (XXG) from lawsuits
271:
wording that may have been taken from the school Web site or some school document. If the pictures in the article belong to the school itself, please take those off. If you know of anything inaccurate, please change it. If the school administration knows of anything inaccurate, someone on the staff
210:
I never was authorized to make it, I only made an original one in my spare time and served as a "moderator" as others expanded it. However it has been seen by the administration and supposedly people out of the school who contacted the administration as true. As the person who has admitted to being
733:
Well, as far as it goes, if the High School had some concerns about the content of the article, I would support their bringing them up on the talk page, or if it's non-controversial, editing it themselves. I don't imagine anybody else would feel different. But as you say, there's nothing in this
705:
A lot of people here seem to be reacting to the circumstances of this nomination, specifically the suggestion that someone other than
Knowledge (XXG) might have authority over what articles can be written. I understand where this sentiment comes from but there are cases where AFD does not have the
1022:
Quite. Vandalism is a pervasive problem, but that's not a
Knowledge (XXG) problem; it's one of society at large, and there are more sensible, reasoned responses than forbidding people from saying anything because you're afraid that they'll say something you don't like. Following that, given the
345:
While I am in 100% agreement with the above editors who assert that this school's administrators have no authority over
Knowledge (XXG), I do have hesitations over how this article is sourced and if this school is notable enough to warrant an article. As it stands now most of info is unsourced,
135:
I'm not really sure which way to vote. As for "authorization from the school that it represents" - except for the logo they don't have to authorize it. It doesn't appear to be a copyright violation. What do they mean by authoriztion? I make make a decision if I can see what the inaccuracies are.
536:
Since it seems that this will not be deleted, I did as said by
Dhartung and cleared anything I believe to be insider information. I am hoping that this will not be considered as clearing the page since the majority has been removed, however I will suggest that someone with more knowledge of the
288:
whatsoever in the article is untrue or inaccurate, they of course have the right to remove or change it, but aside from that (and copyright issues), they have no say in the matter as far as
Knowledge (XXG) is concerned. Would they really punish you just for creating the article? That would be
1023:
bent of this school's administration -- provided their stance is, indeed, being accurately reported -- they do seem to define "inaccurate" as meaning "information which makes us look bad." Are they really trying to tell us that an inner-city high school in New Jersey is free of violence?
220:
Knowledge (XXG) pages don't have moderators. I hope the school can understand that you have no control over, or responsibility for, the page. While all pages here should aim for accuracy, the wise reader will be cautious about how far s/he trusts them, especially if sources aren't given.
121:
This page has been created without authorization from the school that it represents. It has been discovered that a lot of the information is false and could be overall inaccurate. As the original creator of the page I have been requested by the administration to delete the page. KB.
797:
doesn't apply to the basic premise of having an article. The principal or other administrators would be advised to review the page on a regular basis to ensure nothing actionable has been written, but they are somewhat naive if they believe they have the right to control this page.
599:
kept, without regard to any actions by the administration. I do think that's a boneheaded thing to do, but it's got nothing to do with this subject. Finally, I think you should be advised, AfD is not a vote, it is a discussion. Numbers don't matter. Ideas and arguments do.
431:
is probably under attack by dim-witted school administrators that don't understand what Knowledge (XXG) is and think they're being H4X0R3D...that is if high school administrations and their comprehension of technology hasn't changed any since I was in high school.
960:
or vandalism patrollers. Anyone who wishes to ensure the accuracy of any specific article is free to edit it at any time, and by creating a user account, can track contributions to that page to help combat vandalism. Alternatively, if vandalism is frequent,
230:
I know that there aren't moderators, however I always have looked back to the page to ensure that things aren't going too far in the wrong direction and I always expected this to happen eventually now that Knowledge (XXG) is quite popular in the
520:) has released his edits under the GFDL, they are now "ours", not his/hers, so the administration should be aware of this. Not sure if they think this is like a MySpace group or what, but we don't need their permission to write about them. --
855:
For my part, were I a parent in that district, I'd be deeply concerned (although not in the least degree surprised) about a so-called educator with such a mediocre command of grammar, spelling and punctuation. I'd be
943:
remarks, I apologize to the school administrators and anyone else who may have been offended by the remarks of these editors. However, I must point out that all contributions to Knowledge (XXG) are licensed under the
999:
It's only apparent claim to fame is being in the top 20% of high schools according to one magazine? Not notable. (Though I personally think all high schools should be listed, that ain't the policy at this time.)
359:
Well, I do agree with your concerns over the article's content (though not notability itself), but those are cleanup issues, not deletion ones. I'll tag it for cleanup right now since somebody else agrees though.
87:
82:
91:
168:
based on your username, but there has been so much editing since you created it, this should be negated by now. I really can't see a reason to delete this besides "its unauthorized" (most articles here
74:
391:
The article will greatly benefit from a thorough cleanup. No one owns this article, and I will certainly volunteer my efforts to improving it and ensuring that no one is "blamed" for its content.
376:
Your school has no ability to determine what articles Knowledge (XXG) has, and as High Schools in general are found to be notable, so there is no reason to delete it, since it is a real school.
880:
Wow! From this can we take it that "reverse psychology' really works, and that the best way in the future to keep a high school article is to say that the administration wants it removed?
548:
Article looks much better now. That's the way to do things, if material is unencyclopedic, poorly sourced, dubious, etc. Though some things, like ethnicity statistics, should also have
898:
Conflict of Interest: I started this article with an organization I am involved with and it has been edited by those involved with it and in competition with it in inappropriate ways.
54:
114:
931:. Many editors in this debate seem to have allowed their indignation at the perceived hubris of these school administrators to overcome their reasoned, rational, natural
78:
247:
589:
to ensure that the vote is simply not knee-jerk to the demands of a school administration. Let's make sure the article is thoroughtly sourced and attributed. /
448:, it cannot be simply told what to do. Also, factuality is not an adeqaute argument when nominating an article. Flaws can always be removed- that's why we use a
734:
article that seems defamatory to me. Of course, we don't know what the school administration really said either, so it's a non-issue as far as I'm concerned.
272:
should change it. Otherwise, with all due respect and trying to be as civil as possible, your school administration may go to hell. We are independent of them.
70:
62:
49:
413:
Ah, okay. Well then, you can always point them to this page as proof that you tried to do what they asked, but the Knowledge (XXG) community refused. --
1027:
1004:
989:
977:
923:
911:
884:
868:
847:
804:
785:
767:
758:
738:
728:
697:
685:
669:
632:
617:
603:
593:
571:
541:
528:
494:
471:
436:
417:
408:
395:
383:
364:
350:
337:
306:
293:
276:
257:
235:
225:
215:
200:
159:
126:
56:
763:
Eh, I just figured that people were venting steam, and as far as that goes, it's not as bad as the Daniel Brandt discussion. Now there's a mess.
793:. High schools may or may not be notable, but this one appears to pass notability (and there is a precedent). A school is not a living being so
502:
and cleanup including sourcing. A good chunk of the article is unencyclopedic "insider" detail that can be discarded, which removes most of the
346:
while the article looks ok and seems to be pretty NPOV it remains a problem. Still this is no reason to summarily delete a decent article. --
444:. The article seems okay to me. For the nominator- Knowledge (XXG) is independent of other organizations. Unless the article in question is a
907:
There is more to it and until someone provides a history showing this, it should be removed because I am not the one who will write it. KMB
861:
their teaching. That aside, he's right in one thing and one thing only: our motivation is sure not about what's good for his school.
843:
284:
for now. I have to agree with Norton that your school administration has no authority to demand that an article on them be deleted. If
196:
155:
17:
517:
836:
189:
148:
332:
1044:
36:
466:
302:
is completely unacceptable, but I'll assume good faith and presume that you weren't aware of that at the time. --
1043:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
753:
723:
681:
as it's essentially a bad faith nom by proxy (i.e. bad faith on the school's part, not the actual nominator).
557:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
661:
1017:
782:
764:
735:
600:
380:
361:
553:
537:
school post to make a newer article if this does not delete (which seems to be the likely scenario here).
347:
511:
222:
483:
like local newspapers. Anything that is not or can't be sourced should be removed from the article. --
986:
920:
908:
538:
507:
428:
405:
232:
212:
123:
962:
747:
717:
414:
303:
290:
794:
707:
832:
648:
525:
185:
144:
1013:
970:
957:
953:
932:
641:
644:! Telling school administrators to "go to hell" is unworthy of the Knowledge (XXG) community.
560:
for examples of how sourcing should ideally be done. But, the article is vastly better now. --
799:
781:. There's simply nothing distinguishing this school entry from others. Precedent says keep.
433:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
940:
629:
328:
966:
952:
is such that vandalism occurs, but over a statistically-significant period, the actions of
503:
165:
452:! Possible bad-faith nom. I concur with the elaborate argument placed by Noroton as well.
549:
480:
1012:
Well, while certainly referring to someone as a Yahoo or anything else is a question of
1024:
974:
865:
694:
613:. Notable magnet school, and one of the top schools in the state. Find a new hobby.
566:
489:
460:
948:
and are therefore no longer the property of the contributors, and that the nature of
825:
614:
590:
521:
445:
392:
178:
137:
273:
254:
108:
901:
Vandalism: This article is subject of constant vandalism with untrue information.
506:
challenges. The basic information about the school should be easily verified. As
936:
881:
626:
319:
1001:
682:
377:
561:
484:
454:
939:
who may not have time to return to this discussion and reconsider their
744:
or very bad publicity) are in fact more important than our customs.
714:
and tag it as unreferenced, or at the worst reduce it to a stub.
1037:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
949:
945:
449:
299:
104:
100:
96:
479:
I suggest making sure it is thoroughly sourced with
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
625:; should be sourced, but certainly not deleted.
1047:). No further edits should be made to this page.
892:I am the student who suggested this for deletion
173:by their subject), so I am provisionally voting
640:per Mister Manticore, but please everybody, be
677:wholly invalid reason for nomination. Almost
71:Science Park High School (Newark, New Jersey)
63:Science Park High School (Newark, New Jersey)
8:
246:: This debate has been included in the
298:I'll also note that doing things like
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
427:. Marginally notable high school.
24:
969:of the page by a Knowledge (XXG)
289:absolutely ridiculous of them. --
248:list of Schools-related deletions
706:final say—a salient example is
1:
956:are usually corrected by the
267:please change it -- that is,
425:Keep but cleanup immediately
177:unless I see a real reason.
1064:
1028:14:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
1010:Further comment on my part
1005:02:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
57:16:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
990:04:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
978:04:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
924:03:16, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
912:03:12, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
885:18:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
869:21:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
848:21:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
810:From School Administrator
805:07:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
786:00:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
768:03:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
759:21:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
739:20:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
729:19:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
698:19:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
686:18:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
670:16:45, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
633:07:35, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
618:05:27, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
604:06:24, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
594:05:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
572:05:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
542:05:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
529:04:52, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
495:04:35, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
472:04:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
437:04:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
418:04:07, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
409:04:01, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
396:03:57, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
384:03:51, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
365:03:51, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
351:03:45, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
338:03:35, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
307:03:40, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
294:03:33, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
277:03:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
258:02:56, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
236:02:25, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
226:02:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
216:02:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
201:02:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
160:02:01, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
127:01:41, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
1040:Please do not modify it.
935:. On behalf of all the
558:Plano Senior High School
32:Please do not modify it.
554:Stuyvesant High School
442:Speedy keep and close
973:can be requested. —
51:Nearly Headless Nick
863:Nor should it be.
846:
835:
570:
493:
348:Daniel J. Leivick
336:
260:
251:
199:
188:
171:aren't authorized
158:
147:
1055:
1042:
1018:FrozenPurpleCube
983:Reply to comment
842:
831:
828:
802:
783:Christopher Jost
765:FrozenPurpleCube
757:
750:
736:FrozenPurpleCube
727:
720:
665:
658:
653:
647:
601:FrozenPurpleCube
585:those voting to
564:
487:
481:reliable sources
381:FrozenPurpleCube
362:FrozenPurpleCube
326:
323:
252:
242:
223:Vicki Rosenzweig
208:Reply To Comment
195:
184:
181:
154:
143:
140:
112:
94:
52:
34:
1063:
1062:
1058:
1057:
1056:
1054:
1053:
1052:
1051:
1045:deletion review
1038:
963:semi-protection
917:And in addition
858:extraordinarily
826:
800:
748:
745:
718:
715:
668:
663:
654:
649:
645:
321:
179:
138:
85:
69:
66:
50:
44:The result was
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1061:
1059:
1050:
1049:
1033:
1032:
1031:
1030:
1007:
994:
993:
992:
926:
914:
904:
903:
902:
899:
888:
887:
874:
873:
872:
871:
850:
814:
813:
807:
788:
776:
775:
774:
773:
772:
771:
770:
749:brighterorange
719:brighterorange
700:
688:
672:
660:
635:
620:
608:
607:
606:
575:
574:
545:
544:
531:
497:
474:
439:
422:
421:
420:
398:
386:
370:
369:
368:
367:
354:
353:
340:
312:
311:
310:
309:
279:
261:
240:
239:
238:
228:
205:
204:
203:
119:
118:
65:
60:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1060:
1048:
1046:
1041:
1035:
1034:
1029:
1026:
1021:
1020:
1019:
1015:
1011:
1008:
1006:
1003:
998:
995:
991:
988:
984:
981:
980:
979:
976:
972:
971:administrator
968:
964:
959:
955:
951:
947:
942:
938:
934:
930:
927:
925:
922:
918:
915:
913:
910:
905:
900:
897:
896:
893:
890:
889:
886:
883:
879:
876:
875:
870:
867:
864:
859:
854:
851:
849:
845:
841:
840:
839:
834:
829:
822:
821:
820:
819:
818:
811:
808:
806:
803:
796:
792:
789:
787:
784:
780:
777:
769:
766:
762:
761:
760:
755:
751:
742:
741:
740:
737:
732:
731:
730:
725:
721:
713:
709:
704:
701:
699:
696:
692:
689:
687:
684:
680:
676:
673:
671:
667:
666:
659:
657:
652:
643:
639:
636:
634:
631:
628:
624:
621:
619:
616:
612:
609:
605:
602:
597:
596:
595:
592:
588:
584:
580:
577:
576:
573:
568:
563:
559:
555:
551:
547:
546:
543:
540:
535:
532:
530:
527:
523:
519:
516:
513:
509:
505:
501:
498:
496:
491:
486:
482:
478:
475:
473:
469:
468:
463:
462:
457:
456:
451:
447:
446:black project
443:
440:
438:
435:
430:
426:
423:
419:
416:
412:
411:
410:
407:
402:
399:
397:
394:
390:
387:
385:
382:
378:
375:
372:
371:
366:
363:
358:
357:
356:
355:
352:
349:
344:
341:
339:
334:
330:
325:
324:
317:
314:
313:
308:
305:
301:
297:
296:
295:
292:
287:
283:
280:
278:
275:
270:
265:
262:
259:
256:
249:
245:
241:
237:
234:
229:
227:
224:
219:
218:
217:
214:
209:
206:
202:
198:
194:
193:
192:
187:
182:
176:
172:
167:
163:
162:
161:
157:
153:
152:
151:
146:
141:
134:
131:
130:
129:
128:
125:
116:
110:
106:
102:
98:
93:
89:
84:
80:
76:
72:
68:
67:
64:
61:
59:
58:
55:
53:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1039:
1036:
1009:
996:
982:
928:
916:
891:
877:
862:
857:
852:
837:
830:
815:
809:
790:
778:
711:
702:
690:
678:
674:
662:
655:
650:
637:
622:
610:
586:
582:
578:
533:
514:
499:
476:
465:
458:
453:
441:
434:Thunderbunny
424:
400:
388:
373:
342:
320:
315:
285:
281:
268:
263:
243:
207:
190:
183:
174:
170:
164:I could see
149:
142:
132:
120:
45:
43:
31:
28:
987:Sciencepark
937:Wikipedians
921:Sciencepark
909:Sciencepark
679:Speedy Keep
539:Sciencepark
508:Sciencepark
477:Keep but...
429:Sciencepark
406:Sciencepark
316:Strong keep
264:Strong Keep
233:Sciencepark
213:Sciencepark
124:Sciencepark
967:protection
1025:RGTraynor
975:Carolfrog
866:RGTraynor
795:WP:LIVING
791:Weak keep
708:WP:LIVING
695:RGTraynor
1014:civility
933:civility
827:Mr.Z-man
801:Charlene
656:spinster
615:Silensor
591:Blaxthos
522:Dhartung
518:contribs
415:Miskwito
393:Alansohn
333:contribs
304:Miskwito
291:Miskwito
286:anything
180:Mr.Z-man
139:Mr.Z-man
115:View log
929:Comment
878:Comment
853:Comment
844:Review!
712:keep it
703:comment
691:Neutral
583:caution
552:. See
550:sources
401:Comment
343:Comment
274:Noroton
255:Noroton
231:school.
197:Review!
156:Review!
133:Comment
88:protect
83:history
997:Delete
958:gnomes
954:trolls
882:Edison
627:Ral315
579:Delete
504:WP:ATT
322:Seicer
92:delete
1002:Hobit
941:hasty
683:WilyD
651:disco
642:civil
269:exact
109:views
101:watch
97:links
16:<
950:wiki
946:GDFL
833:talk
779:Keep
754:talk
724:talk
675:Keep
664:talk
638:Keep
623:Keep
611:Keep
587:keep
581:and
567:talk
562:Aude
556:and
534:Note
526:Talk
512:talk
500:Keep
490:talk
485:Aude
455:Sr13
450:wiki
389:Keep
374:Keep
329:talk
300:this
282:Keep
244:Note
186:talk
175:Keep
145:talk
105:logs
79:talk
75:edit
48:. —
46:keep
965:or
646:...
331:) (
253:--
250:.
166:COI
113:– (
1000:--
798:--
746:—
716:—
524:|
470:)
107:|
103:|
99:|
95:|
90:|
86:|
81:|
77:|
838:¢
756:)
752:(
726:)
722:(
630:»
569:)
565:(
515:·
510:(
492:)
488:(
467:C
464:|
461:T
459:(
335:)
327:(
191:¢
150:¢
117:)
111:)
73:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.