Talk:Stuyvesant High School/Archive 1

message: though correct in phraseology, the sentence "sending the most students to..." could be misleading.  perhaps it would be good to add some term such as "abosolute" to indicate "most" in the absolute numbers sense, not just the highest numbers, for the sake of clarity.--gwc 04:44, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: the most students

message: I somehow doubt that there are 55 AP courses offered at Stuyvesant, seeing as there are only 31 AP tests.
:At Stuyvesant we have quite a few courses that are either at or beyond the level of the AP, therefore I think it is safe to say 55 AP courses abulanov 02:51, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Just because there are classes which cover material at a level beyond the AP exam does not make them AP courses.  And just because a group which supports the school has that claim on their website, it does not make it true.
Regarding "the top school in the city," I've never seen any evidence either, but it's a popular credit given to the school.  I took issue with putting it on this page as well, since I'm a Hunter College High School alum, but didn't want my bias to show by removing it.  :)  Maybe we could say "many New Yorkers consider Stuyvesant to be the top HS in NYC, but students at other magnet schools might disagree."  --zandperl 20:39, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

text: Or we could say "Stuyvesant High School is a top school".  I definitely agree with you that Hunter and Stuy are on par with each other.  I'm a Stuy grad, btw.  -A1111 00:53, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

text: I just made a similar change to the Bronx Science page, since we've done this to Stuy.  Brooklyn Tech doesn't claim that status, so we're OK there. :-) --RossPatterson 23:46, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)

text: 68.175.26.54, Stop using bold type! Niffweed17 23:49, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Hmm, yes.  You are truly a stellar example of the type of secure and well rounded alumni produced by Brooklyn Tech. ;-) --BenjaminTsai Talk 11:44, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  AP courses 

message: why is it that all the vandalism i see on this page deals with hunter? do hunter student feel the need to vandalize this page because of some inferiority complex? i don't see any stuy kids vandalizing the hunter page yet there are daily vandalism of the stuy page by hunter. i also see that a good chunk of the hunter page is devoted to bashing stuy - again very curious as it seems they are more interested in bashing stuy then writing something about their own school whose page does not even come close to stuy's again is it an inferiority complex
to hunter student why don't you grow up and realize that vandalizing stuy's page is not going to made hunter any better known if anything it makes you look cheap
could you please stop --abulanov 04:32, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: it's not a inferiority complex; it's actually much simpler.  we're just very VERY jealous of all the publicity and FUNDING you guys get.--gwc 04:33, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm not sure if this is a sarcastic comment.  On the one hand Stuyvesant does receive a great deal of publicity, on the other hand Stuyvesant receives less funding per student from the city than the average NYC public high school. --BenjaminTsai Talk 22:47, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  hunter vandalism 

message: While the zeal for Wikipedia is all well and good, this article has gone well beyond the recommended 32KB limit.  If you want to add more alumni, I would suggest starting a new wiki page on "List of Stuyvesant alumni" and moving the alumni list there instead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Directorstratton (talk • contribs) 18:39, 31 January 2005
:A1111 has now done that (see List of Stuyvesant High School people).  As a result, I've just moved all the alumni conversations from this page to Talk:List of Stuyvesant High School people.  RossPatterson 17:46, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page getting too long 

message: It is second in the country to Thomas Jefferson in SAT's, Ap's, and Ivy League placement, all to Thomas Jefferson in Virginia. 68.174.143.165
: Can you post some citations for that?  As a Fairfax County resident and a former Stuyvesant student, I'd love to know which school leads in the standings. RossPatterson 16:09, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: it was not a candidate in that  list since they eliminate selective-admission high schools abulanov 10:24, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stuyvesant is actually the top school in the city. 

message: Template:Stuyvesant_High_School_infobox and Template:Stuyvesant_High_School_infobox2]] have been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion here. If deleted, the template will be copied into the article beforehand. -Splash 01:31, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It would appear the deletion happened.  The page looks normal, and I don't think the template was being used anywhere else, so I guess all is well.  RossPatterson 13:41, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: TfD notice

message: How many Nobel Prize winners have attended Stuyvesant? I would think that there would be a few, yet I don't see a list of them. PersonDude 02:22, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is over the generally-accepted limit on size, so all the notable alumni were moved to a separate page, List of Stuyvesant High School people.  At last count, Stuyvesant had four Nobel laureates: Roald Hoffmann '54 (Chemistry 1981), Joshua Lederberg '41 (Medicine 1958), Richard Axel '63 (Medicine 2004), and Robert Fogel '44 (Economics 1993). I've updated this page and the alumni page to highlight them.  RossPatterson 02:16, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Robert Fogel didn't win a Nobel prize. He won a Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics. They sound similar, but are not quite the same thing. 68.161.13.188 22:40, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  True, because there isn't a Nobel Prize in Ecomonics, despite what it's popularly called.  I've propagated the change in terms to the other mention of Fogel.  RossPatterson 03:53, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure the passage above belongs in the talk section here. --BenjaminTsai Talk 22:25, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nobel Prize Winners 

message: "While Stuyvesant accepts students purely on their performance on the SSHSAT, John Lindsay and ACORN have argued [2] [3] that, like the SAT and other standardized exams, the exam may be biased against African and Hispanic Americans. For further information, see the articles on Stuyvesant's student body and standardized testing."
Do not understand the point of this paragraph, as it seems a bizarre assertion. Some activist groups claim many things, as they wish for more funding. This assertion seems as Asian students have no problems with the exam! How can--Zxcvbnm 19:48, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There are many potential reasons for why African Americans and Hispanic Americans are under-represented within the schools.  However it is clear from the success of new legal and illegal Asian American immigrants that the constraining factor is not an issue of economics.  In any event, I have removed the paragraph as the footnotes do not exist and furthermore is only the assertions of one small group. --BenjaminTsai 00:03, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no potential reason, there is no direct proof therefore it does not belong in an encyclopedia. The only reason minorities would not be accepted is because of a lower level of education BEFOREHAND, not because of biased testing.--Zxcvbnm 16:28, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Although it is stated, it is not proven. That's like an article stating "aliens exist" without proof and you putting it in the aliens article--Zxcvbnm 19:48, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It is also restated in the student body article, why dont you look there and add whatever you need.--Zxcvbnm 19:50, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Just to be clear, the Gotham Gazette article, entitled "Segregated Schools: Shame of The City" doesn't accuse Stuyvesant of having any sort of bias whatsoever.  Rather, it uses Stuyvesant's current student body to demonstrate that the rest of the New York City school system doesn't prepare students well enough.  It's a very interesting thesis, but it isn't related to the accusations of bias in the Stuyvesant admission process and I don't think it should influence any decision made on this NPOV dispute. RossPatterson 11:33, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ridiculous Assertion 

message: 24.239.149.9's paragraph in Exhibit 1 can be summarized more neatedly with less biased into the sentence in Exhibit 2. --BenjaminTsai 22:37, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I can agree on this 24.239.149.9 23:20, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This same thing is repeated in the article on the Stuyvesant High School student body, it does not belong in the main article. --Zxcvbnm 19:16, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  There has been a consensus to replace Exhibit 1 with Exhibit 5. --BenjaminTsai Talk 11:04, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  ACORN/Lindsay 

message: Inclusion of Exhibit 3 in the leading paragraph is unnecessary.  The connection between the various SSHSAT schools are stated clearly in the succeeding paragraphs.  Furthermore even if it was necessary to put a "See also" link in the article, it is not appropriate to put it in the leading paragraph. --BenjaminTsai 22:46, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The 3 schools are correlated and necessary 24.239.149.9 23:20, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, it's repeated in the student body article, dont put it here--Zxcvbnm 19:17, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Is there a consensus to to remove Exhibit 3 from the article? --BenjaminTsai Talk 11:03, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Please read Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#.22See_also.22_section, the See also links in the introductory section do not belong in the introductory paragraph.  It belongs in the existing section See also. --BenjaminTsai Talk 01:05, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Are you suggesting that we should listen to your personal opinion over the Wikipedia Manual of Style?  It is true that the manual of style is not an absolute guideline, but people need to have a very compelling reason to break it.  The mere fact that the schools uses the same admission test is not a good enough reason to break the Manual of Style. --BenjaminTsai Talk 20:01, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Let's assume for a moment that they are "intrically" linked, as you put it.  It is still against Wikipedia Manual of Style to put it in the introduction.  And no, they're not actually in a constant state of competition, at least not from the perspective of most Stuyvesant students and alumnis.  As for why use Brooklyn Tech?  It's just a question of which other school has the capabilities to support the infusion of an extra 3000 student. --BenjaminTsai Talk 07:13, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

text: That's great, I agree there's a connection between the three schools that most other schools don't have, just not to the extent your trying to paint.  But even if they did, and I don't know how many times I have to say this, it is still against Wikipedia Manual of Style to put it in the introductory section. --BenjaminTsai Talk 16:24, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

text: My argument was not they weren't.  If you read the above, you'll see that I've consistently said that they do not belong in the leading section, even if they were linked in the fashion you're describing.  Yes the Manual of Style is not an absolute rule, but you have not presented any compelling reason for why we should break this guideline on the Stuyvesant article.
Top schools in NEW YORK CITY, which are the only schools of their type (for 40 or so years). They are intrically linked.  That is a compelling reason.  24.239.149.9 16:06, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

text: This is not a compelling enough of a reason to break the Manual of Style.  The guideline exists for a reason and we should be cautious when deviating from established standards.  There's much more collaboration and link between Harvard and MIT, Carnegie Mellon and University of Pittsburgh than there is between Stuyvesant and Bronx Science, yet we don't see a "See also" link in the introductory section to each other on those pages do we? --BenjaminTsai Talk 16:28, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Because they offer joint degree programs, have cross faculty appointments, have cross-registration,  and so forth.  The connection between Stuyvesant and the other SSHSAT schools?  Apart from being in the same public school system, the only other formal connections I can think of at the moment are their use of SSHSAT as part of their admission process and their excemption from following the New York City uniform curriculum.  Please understand I am not disputing the fact that there exists a special relation between the SSHSAT schools, however I am strongly suggesting that this special relation is not sufficient reason to break the Wikipedia Manual of Style. --BenjaminTsai Talk 05:55, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

text: People come to this article to read about Stuyvesant High School first and foremost, there's no reason to clutter up the introduction section with links to the other schools.  The other schools are referred to appropriately in the second paragraph under Enrollment and also in the separate See Also section for the entire article. --BenjaminTsai Talk 05:55, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

text: No, let's not.  SING! has been a defining feature of life at Stuyvesant for over 30 years.  It deserves to be heard.  RossPatterson 22:20, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

text: you don't get it.  when you consider the time, effort, and attention put into SING and compare it to that of the junior or senior prom, you will see why SING! is included while the prom is not.  however, if you are so inclined, add a section about the prom. Niffweed17 00:40, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  See also 

message: 24.239.149.9, if you are unhappy with the subsection names, feel free to change them to modify them to something you feel is more appropriate.  Please do not however remove the formatting as the lack of formatting makes it hard to follow this discourse. --BenjaminTsai 00:13, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: formatting is agreed upon can you agree on what is acceptable and consessions being made? 24.239.149.9 00:39, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Look, if you don't know how to edit an article, then please leave. You CANNOT make sections all in bold. You can't make biased assertions without reasonable proof, and your links don't contain proof. Also, your edits are mispelled, and you cannot keep vandalizing. Unless you can get a court ruling that tests are biased, then you can't put that there, and the EPA says that asbestos is at a safe level, so you cannot put that students were "not made aware" of being in a "toxic waste dump" because it's simply not true. Now please stop or you will be banned...again.....because you have been before and you are probably a vandal.--Zxcvbnm 16:07, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually, you can put assertions into Wikipedia.  You just convert them into verifiable facts (ex. "Pigs can fly" -> "So and so asserts that pigs can fly"). --BenjaminTsai 20:00, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Bobbydoop, I'm not sure I see where the "reasonable proof" is.  All we have is a 2002 article from a newspaper of dubious reputation, claiming to cite a New York Times article but provides no reference at all to the article cited. --BenjaminTsai Talk 17:04, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no proof and if the creator of those passages was really serious they would have read the style guidelines and made it a normal paragraph without bolding. The fact that they are anonymous gives no credibility whatsoever.--Zxcvbnm 17:52, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  That is in general my feeling, however I try to practice WP:FAITH.. but that can only go on for so long. --BenjaminTsai Talk 23:06, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Subsection titles 

message: Bobbydoop (presumably 24.239.149.9), it is against Wikipedia etiquette to do wholesale reverts.  Particularly if this results in reverting positive changes that is totally unrelated to the reason for your revert.  I refer specifically to the infobox changes, fixes to the (in dispute) Bronx Science see also link, and the NPOV dispute template.  Please stop reverting and try to resolve this dispute in a more cordial manner. --BenjaminTsai Talk 16:47, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: what you fail to understand is that your edits are not based on fact and are questionable.  BenjaminTsai is correct in removing them so that they reflect the standards of reputability to which Wikipedia upholds.  I know you have not listened to reason, but please stop removing the NPOV tag, as it is clearly appropriate for this article and stop posting whole sentences in bold, as this interferes with Wikipedia style.  Additionally, please stop pasting your inane asbestos-related comments, as they are not appropriately handled in the form of Wikipedia.  Niffweed17 18:29, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Dear anonymous user, please point out which of my subsequent revisions are racially biased.  I have steered clear of the contentious topics and have only been doing minor edits on formatting.  I'm sorry if you feel changing the school infobox template, removing the text "SPECTATOR NO LONGER HAS A WEBSITE", giving a count of pretigious award winners, syncronizing the study body text with the text on the Student Body main article, and so forth are racially biased edits. --BenjaminTsai Talk 22:20, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Your assertion that substantiated information is appropriate is quite correct, but you fail to understand that you are not handling it in an appropriate manner.  Some of the sources provided are overtly obvious and unnecessary; for example, it is not necessary to post information on the Stuy PA or on how lead poisoning causes brain damage, as these have nothing to do with the sources.  Furthermore, some information used to back your argument is dubious, such as the EPA source you have referenced.   Bottom line, your sources are not good, are generally misplaced within the article, and do not conform to the Wikipedia style guidelines.  If you do nothing else, stop placing sections in bold and stop removing the NPOV tag.  Niffweed17 18:50, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Whether I am a student, an alumnus, a faculty member or any other relation to Stuyvesant is none of your business at all.  You are handling the information inappropriately.  I am not giving a biased POV to protect Stuyvesant; your proof of there being asbestos exposure in Stuyvesant is merely unreputable.  A link to how lead poisoning can cause brain damage, for example, has nothing to do with Stuyvesant High School, or any potential exposure that it may have to asbestos.  While it is acceptable that the idea that Stuyvesant High School is exposed to asbestos be included in the article, your handling of it as a definite fact is not acceptable because your sources are not varied and not generally reputable.  I thought I was very kind in saying "The truth of this assertion is unknown."  Furthermore, I don't need to provide evidence to refute yours because this is an encyclopedia article, not a debate.  You need to provide some good, reputable evidence to support your POV.  As always, PLEASE stop it with the bold typeface; it's really annoying. Niffweed17 20:47, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Those of us who have been working on this article for more than the last week have addressed the size point on several occasions, and will likely continue to do so once things settle back down.  The list of alumni at List of Stuyvesant High School people was once part of this page, as was Stuyvesant High School student body.  There are some other obvious spin-outs, and someone will undoubtably address them in a calm, cool, and collected fashion. RossPatterson 02:18, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

text: The Stuy article being too long may be a valid point, but if so it should not necessarily be deleted.  It should be moved onto different pages.  Now, about the remainder of your comment, it is incorrect.  This is an encyclopedia article, not a debate floor.  I can say that the sky is falling and reference the current cloudy weather, but is it reputable?  Your sources are simply not acceptable and they do not serve to adequately prove your point; they are therefore unacceptable.  For the last time, please stop with the bold faced type.  And by the way, your grammar could use some improvement as well. Niffweed17 21:12, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  The anonymous user (sockpuppets?) seems to be trolling, especially with the incendiary comment about "large scale deletion" and unsubstantiated accusations of racism. --BenjaminTsai Talk 01:12, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Bobbydoop, how does replacing Exhibit 1 with Exhibit 2 downplay potential biases against African and Hispanic Americans? --BenjaminTsai Talk 03:56, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Yes, this is fine. --BenjaminTsai Talk 04:21, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  We should keep Exhibit 1 and 2 as reference for other people following this discussion.  I've added the agreed phrasing as Exhibit 5 to be consistent. --BenjaminTsai Talk 05:01, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Wait a minute...by saying that, you are saying that the SAT and other standardized exams are all biased, which I don't think has been proven. A better way to phrase it is
"While Stuyvesant accepts students purely on their
performance on the SSHSAT, John Lindsay and ACORN have
argued that the exam, as well as the SAT and other standardized
exams, may be biased against African and Hispanic
Americans. "
or just
"While Stuyvesant accepts students purely on their
performance on the SSHSAT, John Lindsay and ACORN have
argued that the exam may be biased against African and Hispanic
Americans. "--Zxcvbnm 18:07, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

text: If you kept it like that it would still be biased which is presumably what you want, if you don't agree with a non-biased version.--Zxcvbnm 01:51, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wholesale reverts 

message: All right, in addition to making edits based on your absurd asbestos related material, you have now engaged in absolutely blatant vandalism.  The last time I checked, it was not called "Stuyvecrap High School."  You cannot defend yourself against such utterly obvious motives.  Niffweed17 20:27, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's called a vandal. You can't do anything about it, since the IP he is using is an AOL IP, so this page should be semi-protected permanently.--Zxcvbnm 21:04, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I gathered this.  Nonetheless, this does not prevent my attempt to negotiate with this loser, as he appears ready to do despite his rampant vandalism. Niffweed17 23:56, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

text: not sure where stuyvecrap came from... but simply reverting to the 9-11 issue parts.. 152.163.100.199 00:12, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It came from an edit by 167.206.203.14 at 12:32 on 11 January 2006.  This is just one of the reasons why revert-wars are bad - nobody quite knows what they're putting back when the revert the article.  As I and others have pointed out to you on occasion, your repeated reversions are undoing perfectly legitimate changes as well as the ones you oppose.  RossPatterson 00:47, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

text: 64.12.116.200 and whatever other IPs and userids you use: You need to get used to the fact that there is legitimate editting going on here, outside of your disputes.  When you revert the article to an older copy, you undo those legitimate changes.  It's simply wrong.  If you absolutely must fight over disputed content, please restrict your "war" to undoing those disputed changes - by hand-editting if need be. RossPatterson 14:42, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV vs vandalism 

message: Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/26_12_2005_Stuyvesant_High_School
The following issues appear to be unresolved:
=== Admission requirement ===
see Talk:Stuyvesant_High_School#Admissions_requirement
The main issue seems to be the use of the words thus far. Wikipedia generally aims to document the current state of affairs and does not aim to predict or anticipate future developments, especially not in the form of original research by the wikipedia editors. (see Wikipedia:No original research). If there is a reputable publication that predicts a change that fact can be mentioned, otherwise it seems redundant to alert the reader of an encyclopedic article to the fact that the article describes past developments up to the time of the last change of the article. --Fasten 15:21, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mediation 

message: see Talk:Stuyvesant_High_School#Admissions_requirement
The main issue seems to be the use of the words thus far. Wikipedia generally aims to document the current state of affairs and does not aim to predict or anticipate future developments, especially not in the form of original research by the wikipedia editors. (see Wikipedia:No original research). If there is a reputable publication that predicts a change that fact can be mentioned, otherwise it seems redundant to alert the reader of an encyclopedic article to the fact that the article describes past developments up to the time of the last change of the article. --Fasten 15:21, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Admission requirement 

message: see Talk:Stuyvesant_High_School#See_also
WP:STYLE is not a policy but in case of dispute it seems a wise choice to aim for adherance to this guide. The argument that the three schools are intrinsically linked is not by itself an argument to put the other schools in a See also notice in the leading paragraph. Maybe you can agree  on mentioning the other schools in the text of the leading paragraph, if there is a wording that makes this a natural choice. If there is no such wording that may indicate that there is indeed no reason to mention these schools in the leading paragraph. --Fasten 15:21, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  See also 

message: see Talk:Stuyvesant_High_School#9.2F11_Asbestos
The dispute does not properly distinguish to issues:
* Has the school failed to inform parents about actual health risks? The following link may be interesting for further research on this:
**  The Air We Breathe In Lower Manhattan
* Is the school possibly still a health hazard today?
The article the People's Weekly World article was referring to might be 
With Uncertainty Filling the Air, 9/11 Health Risks Are Debated 
but I cannot verify that.
The last New York Times article about the topic appears to be 
When Breathing Is Believing; New Yorkers Doubt E.P.A. Credibility on Air Safety, but Truth Is Complex.
As the date of this article is November 30, 2003 I suggest to turn down the tone of the wikipedia article as of 06:27, 3 January 2006 if no other, more recent publications, mention the issue. The problem we are talking about is the removal of dust particles, which can be done with thorough cleaning. Wikipedia is not the place for original research (see Wikipedia:No original research) about the fact whether the school might be a health hazard today or not if there are no current publications to support this view. --Fasten 15:21, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Asbestos 

message: Folks, while some of you are engaged in an edit war, undisputed changes by others are being undone.  These changes are being lost simply because one or another of you reverts the article to their favorite version, not because any of you have a stated problem with the changes.
Please work out your issues here on the talk page and you'll avoid getting blocked for these reverts.  I see that the latest offender has already been hit with a 24-hour block for breaking the three-revert-rule on another page. RossPatterson 13:46, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have made sure to include the other undisputed changes in the revert. I recommend immediately banning the anon and all his sock puppets that are vandalizing this page constantly even after the changes were agreed upon.--Zxcvbnm 21:04, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for helping preserve the undisputed parts of the page.  You missed a category change, but I fixed it.  As to banning people, you need to recommend that to a sysadmin, they aren't likely to be watching this page. RossPatterson 01:11, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Wow are you kidding??? You are vandalizing this page with an AOL account and I will be recommended for banning?--Zxcvbnm 21:15, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I could have predicted this.  This anon user simply will not listen.  But, since he still thinks he's right, I recommend filing an RfC against this guy. Niffweed17 00:07, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Do not revert

message: With regards to the brief period of weighting AP courses as 1.1 in overall averages, the article stated that Stuyvesant "had long opposition to this change."  Nonetheless, this claim is inaccurate, as Stuy implemented the policy upon request by the Board of Ed.  While it was true that almost everyone was initially opposed to this policy, it was only in effect at Stuy for one year, and was implemented immediately upon its citywide creation. Niffweed17 21:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  AP Weighting