Talk:Priory School, Lewes/Archive 1

Archive 1

Protected

I see 0 discussion here. Literally 0. Discuss what you want to do here. Work it out. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 23:19, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Recent changes to this article

Recently, an anon editor claiming to be an administrator at the school has started editing the article. This editor has previously requested that the article be protected or deleted after several users reverted the anon's deletion of most of the page's content. After several users reacted to these changes, that editor has realized that protection will never happen (although it did because of some reversions). Certainly though, it will never happen because the anon disagrees with what information is presented here. The entire page needs to be sourced, but I think that the page should be unprotected after we can agree that the minor changes that are being made should be supplemented, not reverted. They are not POV, as some of the earlier ones were. — Scm83x ^talk 23:35, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

We first edited the article back in October when it was first found that rubbish had been written. We put up what we thought was appropriate and left it at that. Since then we noticed a problem user had got interested in wikipedia so checked out our article. This was when we found the article had been changed a lot in the last few months and was very inaccurate. Even this inaccurate article had been vandalised by people and had to be reverted. As the article was so distorted we reverted back to our original article that we produced, not knowing that this is frowned upon. Ezeu has explained this to me since and I understand the theory behind this. This was then reverted back to the rubbish by the problem student, who is going under the name HingKenry. I then sought to either get the article protected or deleted as we do not really have the time to run around after external documents. After discussion with Scm83x that was going nowhere I attempted to toe the line and edit the article to be correct in its current form. This was then reverted by Scm83x and called it vandalism! Ezeu reverted back to our changes as a compromise and the article was as it is now. The problem student then attempted to revert the article back to rubbish from home, even naming one of our members of staff in an attempt, I assume, to provoke him. This was the problem we foresaw and what we wanted to avoid.

We are using an anon user as the area IP address has been banned, more than likely because it covers 10-15 schools and I can imagine that would generate a fair bit of hammering. This situation we are happy with but of course it means we have to use other means to access Wikipedia.

We still would prefer the article to be protected or removed as this situation will pop up again and again but if that is impossible then either protecting what is there and allowing additions or some other method if you have it will have to suffice. -80.237.132.33

Please define rubbish; what is factually inaccurate in the article? My problem with all of these edits is that they are POV pushing, both on the anon's part and that of Hingkenry (talk · contribs). We need to see sources, per WP:CITE, in order to know what side is verifiably correct. I did revert the anon's edits because they had had a history of vandalism to the article. As I'm in the U.S., I have no idea what side is verifiably correct, so I reverted to the version that had been around for a while, considering the editor's history. I apologize for that. Please see Wiki guidelines on ownership, because edits by both involved parties, Hingkenry and the anon, are in violation of these policies. — Scm83x ^talk 09:58, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Depends on what you call POV; the edits since finding out that it is frowned upon to remove everything have only been to remove inaccurate information or informaton not suitable for this site, they have not been to add information so our POV has not been coming across (Unless you take the holistic view of removing information, even if it is incorrect, is a POV). If sources are needed then should the information not be removed as none is related to a source?

We don't want to get picky but if you did not know the situation (in reference to verifiably correct information) then surely the reverting could be counted as vandalism under these guidelines? Surely it would have been better to contact someone from the UK, left a message in the protected pages area where we had a dialogue going all ready or left it for someone else to deal with? As we have said we understand that what was done originally was wrong but we did not know the practices, we were correcting inacurate information as this is what we assumed the process was for Wikipedia.

What the real problem comes down to is 1) having to take time to discuss this all and arrange a solution by commitee for something we don't want up anyway and 2) that even if we sort this out any amount of time could pass before we are going to have to do it again with the same or another problem student with a grudge, hence the original request for a lock or page removed.

Ultimately if an outsider as yourself sees this all as POV then removal seems the way ahead -80.237.132.33

I'm gonna go ahead and say this again: This article will not be removed to prevent information contrary to the school's desires from entering its content. Also, again, please take a look at Wikipedia's ownership guidelines. No one owns this article, not the students nor the administration. The "solution by commitee" idea is something that we do strive for here on Wikipedia. Unfortunately, if something is notable enough to gain an article, it cannot be removed simply because the article's subject desires that outcome.

I am going to make a bold suggestion here. Instead of seeing Wikipedia as a problem, see it as an opportunity. The encyclopedia is a fantastic resource for everyone and an excellent chance to teach children essential writing and research skills. If you make the proper resources available to the students, perhaps this can become a fantastic article through their efforts. Other schools have implemented programs such as this, where students contribute to the Wikipedia as part of class projects. You could improve the articles about the school, the city, and the area around the city. I think if you didn\'t spend so much time and effort fighting the article, you could make it a positive reflection of the school. However, if there are negative things about the school that can be factually verified, you must let the students write about these things. Wikipedia is not an advertising medium, but that is not to say that it cannot be an excellent way to get your kids involved and present the school as a professional organization. What does it say about a school if its article has flagrant grammar and spelling errors?

Please take these suggestions and really think about them. Is Wikipedia something to fight against or something to embrace? I hope you decide the latter, because every article deserves to be featured quality, not to languish under the shadow of protection. — Scm83x ^talk 17:15, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

We are going to stop this discussion now as we thought it was to sort out the article not to discuss Wikipedia philosophy, which we fully backed and supported up to this fiasco. We can see where this is going by some of the comments and there is no point following this line of discission. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.237.132.33 (talk • contribs) .

Let's Cooperate.

Dear All,

I must confess I'm somewhat of a wiki-novice. This should explain my reversal of the 'administrator's' edit. For this I apologise and I hope my sentiments are shared by all those who have illegally altered the page.

Priory is a fine school; I am not a 'student with a grudge' . But my edits have only sought to underline this. I therefore take offence at the 'administrator' branding the information I put up as 'rubbish'. I made the following changes to raise the school's profile. These were, and I think they should be reinstated:

Putting in the school's latin motto: Dare Nec Computare. It's above the Chapel door if you don't believe me!

When the main building (which includes the 'administrator's' office) at Priory was refurbished an excessive number of Design Technology rooms were built. This is a fact and not a POV, as D.T is not on the National Curriculum to this day. Therefore, in line with Wikipedia rules, this cannot be deleted.

Giving a detailed and sympathetic history of the chapel. The 'administrator's edit' deletes the important fact that this elegant sandstone building was built by the people of Lewes. Additionally, the current head of RE did scrap hymns and there ceasing in 2001 or round abouts should be mentioned. Mentioning the head of RE, not by name I should add, was not done to 'provoke' him as the 'administrator' writes. I would be happy to see his office removed in a future version we can all agree on but his actions must be noted. As John Motson would say, it's a point of fact. 'Amateur dramatics' instead of the gramatically shoddy 'amateur drama' and the colon in the 'Houses' section (neglecting the need for a clumsy '.They are..').

The 'Alumni' section. All good schools have such a section on their wiki page. Why not Priory? William Skidelsky did go to Priory and he is Books editor of the New Statesman, a leading centre-left political weekly. The 'administrator' should buy it for himself and see, it's £2.75 at all good newsagents. I can see the possibility of abuse of this feature but it is too important to leave out.

Such a feature should be left to the wiki public to police. The page cannot just become a noticeboard for Priory School. After all the first site to come up when 'Lewes Priory School' is typed into Google is Priory's own page. In this regard I entirely agree with the remarks of Scm83x. The page should be unprotected a.s.a.p. Please to let me know how else I can participate in the negotiations for this wiki? Hingkenry 20:10 January 18th, 2006.

Where did you get these 'facts'? Have you sourced any of this information? If you had then in line with wiki guidelines you would be correct in demanding them to return. Here is my research:

Dare Nec Computare. With very little research this was translated to "To give and not count the cost", which funnily enough ties into the theme that the chapel was built to commemorate the deaths of those in WW1. This theme is repeated many times within the chapel in many places, but only within the chapel. After asking one member of staff if this is correct he confirmed this, as well as confirming there is NO school motto for Priory School in its current form.

Asking various staff again very easily showed that the 'excess' of DT rooms is a POV. As we have 6 some say that is a bit excessive but breaking it down into actual DT rooms and what used to be called Home Economics, that is 3 each. We know of at least one school with 6 DT rooms alone so excessive is very subjective. As for not being part of the National Curriculum, a quick search of Google for "DT National Curriculum" not only brings up 15,600 results but on the first page a Government site detailing programmes of study for DT within the National Curriculum.

Once again using only this site and the history function we managed to deduce that we in fact did not remove the statement about "Lewesians" building the chapel but this was in fact a Moderator at the suggestion of someone else because of a grammar check. Again if you were to check, the current head of RE did not stop hymns in the chapel, they still carry on for year 7 and Carols by Candlelight, but they were stopped for the rest of the school as students were mucking around excessively, making up words and not taking it seriously. When asked why, the students said they didn't want to sing them so they were stopped for these years. If you wish it to be reinstated maybe you should use the School Council system to suggest this and see what reception it got?

Again, using the history feature of this site shows that it was actually Scm83x that changed 'Amateur dramatics' wording to a gramatically [sic] shoddy version (in your words).

The removal of the Alumni section was maybe a bit much but as it was being the most abused section this was the reasoning. But again who should be put in there? This is someone's POV who deserves it, with William Skidelsky in there, why not his brothers and sister, or every person that leaves? Maybe Notable Alumni would be better and let people discuss who should go in there?

At no point has this article become a noticeboard for Priory, we only strove to remove inaccuracies and falsehoods, badly in the first instance we admit but since then in line with wiki guidelines.

Is there a problem with the Priory site coming up first in a search? Is this the reasoning for you creating this article, to try and replace our site with your information? Entering Microsoft, Apple or even Wikipedia brings up the correct site as first entry. Are you going to change this as well? Or are your motives only towards Priory School?

As a final story, in researching this staff asked the reasons for the questions and I told them it was because of this article on Wikipedia. I'm sorry to say that many seemed most dismayed that this was possible or even happening and admitted that they would now be wary of using Wikipedia. It's a shame for a great resource to be tainted like this but it seems unavoidable.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.237.132.33 (talk • contribs) .

Student POV

I'm a 5th year student at this school and a long time wiki users (just never needed an account yet) and I’ve been following this discussion with intrigue. I've reviewed the changes made by both users and read both users comments on this page. A quick check of the IP address 80.237.132.33 told me that this IP does not belong to the Priory School Network and originates in Germany so can not be a home connection of an administrator. I think that 80.237.132.33 is a fraud attempting to make trouble for an unknown reason. If he is an IT administrator of Priory School he should be able to tell me 2 things: What audio software is available on the music block PCs and what program on the network has replaced Microsoft Paint?

If 80.237.132.33 is indeed an administrator of the school then I apologise however HingKenry appears to me to have violated no rules of Wikipedia (although i'm certinly not a Wiki expert) and the articles, bar a few date discrepancies, appear to be mostly accurate. One example of a discrepancie being the date hymns where abolished and by who. The current head of RS joined the school during the 3rd term of my first year (2001) and during my first 2 terms no hymns where sung so I do not see how he could have abolished them.

I think this page should be unprotected immediately as it's content does not fall under the schools jurisdiction unless the article was edited in school time, on a school computer by a current student then it is a violation of Priory School Network use policy but only if offensive content is added about the school otherwise it violates no rules. I think it's up to students like myself and staff, if they wish to participate, to keep this article accurate and free of vandalism. I think the school has no right to prevent the students having freedom of speech about their school providing they keep with Wiki rules and, accordingly, make sure what they say is fact and not their opinion. This is purely just my point of view and you are free to disagree with me if you wish. Minuszero 18:27, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

If one is to moan at someone else for not checking the history of the article they may want to check the history themselves; the section on alumni has always been NOTABLE Alumni. Furthermore, William Skidelskys' brother was put on there by HingKenry, and the reason that other students shouldn't is because they aren't NOTABLE!!!

Secondly, reporting the issue with hymns to the school council is a flagrant waste of time as very little creedance is paid to what ever they vote on or suggest. Also, Carols by Candlelight is not the same as compulsory hymns as it is done in the evening around Christmas, for parents, or Carols are sung at the Christmas assembly, although it seems that even these are being usurped, in favour of 'promising' music from school bands.

Thirdly, what is the point in taking issue with HingKenry over his statement that Priory School comes up first on search engines???? No relation can be drawn between that statement and wanting to 'degrade' in some way the name of Priory.

It seems that this is being perpetuated by a reactionary associated with Priory, (not HingKenry I might add), who perhaps thinks that it is his/her responsibility to police the information.

And to end, I think for a school that is documented as having at least one stabbing take place, a CS gas canister being set off and numerous drugs incidents, and has come through these with their reputation unscathed, saying that William Skidelsky is a notable Alumnus is not going to do any harm. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by If Only (talk • contribs) .

I am very curious as to this new revelation that the 80.237.132.33 IP is in Germany. The IP range is registered to "RIPE Network Coordination Centre" in Amsterdam. That website then states that this specific address is allocated to the following information, appearing to originate in Germany: whois lookup.

Furthermore, please stop adding (mistakenly or purposely) \\\\\ to the text of others before every apostrophe. I am getting tired of removing it every time the page is edited. — Scm83x ^talk 18:58, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

\"I may despise what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it\" - Voltaire

There are a few rather nasty things I could say about some of the comments made in this discussion by 80.237.132.33 about my motives, but I would like to thank Minuszero, If Only and Scm83x for their support of the facts. What I will say is that we must, when editing or discussing this page Dare Nec Computare. As it is the second line of the Prayer of St. Ignatius, let\'s \" toil and not seek for rest and fight and not heed the wounds\" to ensure the veracity of the page.

The disputed motto is a good place, therefore, to start. Dare Nec Computare was certainly in use at the time of the construction of the Chapel but I accept that it is not now. Shouldn\'t it go up there as \"former motto\" or \"motto above Chapel door\" or \"motto of LCGSB\"? On the other hand, I am aware that the current head of RE did make explicit reference to said motto in a recent chapel assembly. Clearly, it deserves a mention. The information I have provided could go towards a source (?).

Sticking with that much mentioned building and the response given by 80.237.132.33 about hymns is not in the wiki-spirit of reporting the facts. He writes (apologies if you\'re female, but somehow, I doubt it) that hymns \"were stopped for the rest of the school as students were mucking around excessively, making up words and not taking it seriously. When asked why, the students said they didn\'t want to sing them so they were stopped for these years. If you wish it to be reinstated maybe you should use the School Council system to suggest this and see what reception it got\". Frankly, I don\'t care why hymns stopped and who did or did not approve of this. The fact is, they did. It is therefore only in the spirit of openness that some mention is made of hymns being axed/abolished for regular chapel assemblies. Thanks to Minuszero for helping to clear up who stopped hymns, but I suppose it isn\'t that important in the end. I agree with Minuszero that [[80.237.132.33]\'s assertion that hymns continue is, when one considers the existence of the large chapel and the number of meetings held in it, highly disingenous. After all, Christmas, and \"Carols by Candelight\" cometh but once a year.

As for DT, the number of rooms at Priory is a distinguishing feature. It is true, not a POV, that the DT rooms were built in anticipation of that subject\'s inclusion in the NC and when the latter was published it was found the school had overestimated. Again, whether this was a good or bad thing I make no comment on. But 80.237.132.33 seems to misunderstand the meaning of the word \"excessive\". An excess is simply more than is required and for DT at Priory that is certainly true. 80.237.132.33 may know of another school with 6 such rooms but I know of the existence of hundreds of schools that contain nowhere near that number - source, well, Ringmer and Chailey to name but two. Considering that they do very well, the number at Priory is excessive.

The Alumni section of the page is interesting. Pages referring to other schools have such sections. I agree with 80.237.132.33 that \"Notable Alumni\" would be better because, looking through the page\'s history, there have been some abuses of the section. Some well-known people went to Priory and we should name them. 80.237.132.33: let the wiki people decide, I for one will not tolerate silly entries.

This is not a discussion about Wiki philosophy. Nor is it a question of a few bad apples spoiling the crop, that being the very abundant harvest of Priory\'s reputation. It\'s a matter of fact, I\'ve got nothing against Priory coming high in search engine results, nor do I want to replace the priory website with anti-teacher tosh. I merely want us to record the facts of Priory School. This page should become a noticeboard for Truth, and should be unprotected forthwith. Hingkenry 22:32 January 19, 2006.

As there has been a lot of replies over night I will answer them all here.

Feel free to say what you like about my comments, this is an honest and frank discussion, but the questions were to try and discern your motives, for through learning motives we may seek the way forward.

Having looked at the obvious place to research this it shows that this IS the motto of LCGSB so deserves to be proudly displayed in their article, but maybe only noted in ours as the inscription on the chapel with a link to the LCGSB article. Having actually spoken to the teacher concerned he explained that this was the motto of the previous school and he uses it in the assembly every year to give students something to think about.

I am getting sorely confused about what is the wiki-spirit of reporting facts. No sources have been cited previously, no \'facts\' been verified by talking to those that would know and when research is done to check them out it is rubbished.

The facts are hymsns were sung in Chapel. They were stopped when a majority of students mucked around, wouldn\'t sing the hymns or sung them in a way to spoil them. The facts are they were stopped when the majority of students when asked said they did not want to sing hymns. This has been stated by the person who was in charge of them and who made the decision, not the teacher you have issue with. If you do not care about why the hymns were stopped why did you include the statement \"the current Head of Religious Education cruelly axed them\". That is a very directed and personal comment to be made for something you do not care about. Though you admission for no love of him or his post earlier may shed light on this. Again, from talking to people to confirm facts I have found, as I said, that Hymns are still sung by Y7, so not only at Christmas, and the only reason I included the comment about Carols still being sung was becuase that was the statement told to me by the source I was asking. So yes, an entry could be made that hymns used to be sung by all years but have since been reduced to just Y7.

I would love to know why you think the number of DT rooms is such a distinguishing factor? You fail to mention that Science and Humanities have 8, IT has 3 and English, Math and Languages have 6. They only department you mention is the one you have a negative slant on. Where are your sources to say that the rooms are in excess? Have you checked OFSTED or Govenor reports, DFES guidelines? So if there is no source except what you say that is your opinion. In fact you even fail to mention that the 6 rooms are split between two subjects, DT and HE. Do you know if Chailey and Ringmer do this also? Did you take in to count that both these schools are smaller than Priory? Or that when the school was refurbished there wasn\'t a Secondary school in Peacehaven so the intake was even higher?

I do apologise about the Alumni section, I though it had said Notable but in my excitement I forgot to look back. In fact looking now I see that it was scm83x that edited that out. So lets add Notable back to the Alumni, add in William and police it heavily. Maybe any addition should be suggested in the discussion and if no descent it should go ahead. On a seperate point as If Only was the one to add the other 2 names on there, who only left a year and a half so notable may be a way off yet, maybe he would like to explain his criteria or if it was a serious entry?

I only brought up the placing within Google as you had mentioned it. In law I think it\'s called \'opening the door\'. If it was not of any note why bring it up? We seem to have come to a common goal here, I and the school, want the truth to be told but it must be the truth, not a slanted, bias view, one way or the other, that seeks to show only the negative. On a side note may I ask why you also felt the need to include one of the School staff members names in your edit summary?

In response to the query over the IP address, I have explained this all ready, much earlier. All the way up ^ there in fact.

If the user If Only has a problem with the School Council system I would wonder have they got involved? If they have maybe they should talk to the SMT that runs it rather than rant about it here. I\'m sure the SMT member would be very dismayed you see it as a \"flagrant waste of time\" with the amount of time and effort he puts into it (though whose waste of time you are talking about I\'m not sure). Again I only mentioned Priory\'s placing becuase HingKenry brought it up, he must have considered it to have some merit to the discussion.

As for the incidents that were mentioned, why not put them up as long as they are written out in an unbias, encyclopedic way. Maybe we can dig up the report that was given to us over one of them comending staff of their handling of it.

I think that the biggest annoyance we have is that as a school project, yes this could have been great, we could have got a good article up, a factual article including some of the great amount of knowledge we have from the staff here, but not one of the students who have put up their view here came to any of the staff to suggest it, not one of them asked anyone to verify facts that had decided they wanted to include. For those that maybe want to continue may I suggest that this discussion be carried on in face, if all those here really are students (Yes MinusZero we know you are, how are the wall scraping injuries healing?). How about coming along at lunch and discussing this more, rather than leaving it to an impersonal cyberspace discussion. We can really find out the history, really get a good article together and then maybe go for one of those shiny stars scm83x talked about.

And as for the slashes I have no idea. I am not adding any, I think it is the Wiki system trying to sort out the apostrophes, but I have no idea how to stop it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.237.132.33 (talk • contribs) .

I am completely unaware of how 80.237.132.33 (talk · contribs) obtained the personal information of Minuszero (talk · contribs), but I would like to remind everyone that Wikipedia has a strong policy of allowing anyone to contribute to the encyclopedia anonymously and free of unwarranted retribution for their actions. It is obvious that this administrator would hold some power over Minuszero and I believe any behavior to make Minus conform to their ideals about this article would constitute harrassment. — Scm83x ^talk 17:13, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

MinusZero is totally aware of how we obtained that personal information because I was there trying very hard not to laugh ;) That was the best way to let him know we were who we said we were with out using his name, and I'm sorely disappointed he thought I would reveal any information about our network over a public communication medium :p I'm not sure what scm83x is trying to insuiate we would do to MinusZero if he posted but I'm sure MinusZero could confirm how much notice he would take ;) But I will take that as a warning and remove the pokers from the fire and take down the shackles. I never get to use them :(

Not even I want our network info all over Wiki. I wasn’t going to validate your identity on the correctness of the info but the way you answered. And believe me you gave me a very 'you' answer :P although I’m sure revealing the name of our paint substitute is a massive security liability :P And yes I’m not exactly one for listening to authority unless I see a good reason and I’m glad to see your using the method I 'pioneered' for getting round filter software :P I'll be in one lunchtime if that’s ok. Minuszero 10:52, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

School admins are abusing anonymous proxies.

The backslashes in front of quotes for example \' or \" is a result of using a poorly programmed web proxy for anonymous editing. This is the "other means" mentioned by the school admin: They are using anonymous proxies and should be immediately banned per Wikipedia rules.

"12:10, 17 January 2006 (hist) (diff) Lewes Priory School (We don\'t have a motto apart from that this is fine. Can\'t get the picture to work though)"

I'm notifying admin Kelly Martin about this since she's brought this up in the past. --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 19:10, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I am one of the admin team from Priory. I am posting this from home as I decided to check before the weekend as otherwise this discussion will be paused for a while. Minus Zero can think up a verification prcess if you feel it is necessary. I fail to see how us posting was abusing an anonymous proxy. I eventually found the policy for this tucked away under a few layers of policies stepping into each other, but this was only after a determined search and after about 10-15 minutes. I apologise again if this is against the rules but maybe this needs to be highlighted on the submission pages. It was only done to communicate the problems we had found and were unable to through a plain web page due to the IP bannage. As I now know this is considered bad form I officially inform the powers that be that the previous IP address used by Priory is an Anon Proxy. Though this does cause a problem for us communicating normally. If anyone can make a suggestion we'd be happy to hear it.

Again i can validate all of this. As Priory is on a shared internet connection with about 15 other schools our IP in turn is shared with about 15 other schools. With that many kids using an IP and knowing about Wiki you can see how often our IP is banned. Using an anonymous proxy was the only thing administrator could do in order for his voice to be heard. Minuszero 10:52, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Hopefuly An Olive Branch

I can now validate 80.237.132.33 (talk · contribs) is indeed administrator of the school despite the IP address not tracing back to it's normal source due to his possible use of an anonymous proxy (a quick Google did verify that anonymous proxies do exist on the hosteurope.de domain) which I think is irrelevant to this discussion. His surfing habits are his own. The administrator is indeed in a position of power over me at school but as this site falls outside of the schools control and I’m not using a school computer to post this so it does not affect me but thank you for your concern Scm83x.

The point remains that even though 80.237.132.33 (talk · contribs) is an administrator of the schools systems under Wikipedia rules and under (I believe) law he does not hold control of any information contained in this article nor control of what is added. As for disusing this face to face I would be happy to help in the policing of the article and adding of new information but I decided to start the discussion here as it seemed the most appropriate place. But HingKenry (talk · contribs) you too must realize that Wiki is a place of fact and not opinion and that being a student or, as I suspect, an alumni gives you no more right over the information then administrator or me. On Wiki everyone is equal.

On the whole Priory is a good school and it has a rich and positive history that should be made available to anyone who wishes to know it and what better place that Wikipedia where all those who know another interesting fact of funny piece of history can add theirs to the article. I think the administrator’s handling of this situation has been a little heavy handed. I believe this was due to a genuine lack of Wiki knowledge and not an attempt to gain control of the information.

I once again propose that this article be unprotected and instead of deleting all inaccurate information it should be corrected and added to by those who have the knowledge. I myself am willing to keep an eye on this page and check it's accuracy with staff and students in the weeks I have remaining at this school. I would like to thank the Wiki administrators for there time and efforts on this matter and the administrators of the school for taking the time to discuss this issue as well as all other users that have contributed.

On a last point I feel slightly saddened that many staff and student have become cynical about Wikipedia due to this incident. I also think that students’ adding personal opinions to this page was inappropriate and goes against the Wiki philosophy. Wikipedia is a place of facts and free information. I hope that this dispute will be resolved so this article can grow and become a fantastic resource for all those interested in the school and its history. Minuszero 19:30, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Here here!! ;) As a note, should any of my classmates read this, please stop vandalising this page, and wiki in general. I too plan to keep an eye on this page. ~Swifty 21:14, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Unprotection

I have requested for unprotection (here). Should the need arise, blocking individual disruptive users and IPs is probably a better solution. --Ezeu 21:28, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Major Revision 22/06/06

I have just updated the article with all the research and knowledge I have on the school. As I am shortly to become an Alumni I thought it would be a good time. Have marked as major revision and requires review as a few things I was not sure about. These include:

Department Heads names and some of the more 'studenty' comments such as that about "Big tennis"

This is my first major wiki edit so would appreciate feedback! Minuszero 15:53, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Update On Revision

Sorry about all the small changes i've done. Everyone knows i'm notorious for forgetting things when editing. Thanks to Swift for clearing up after my dyslexia as he always does :P.

A quick check by an administartors eye would be helpful here as i'm not entirely sure about the tone. It is all fact (I'm a current student or at least was yesterday, Have now left) to the best of my knowlage but maby a little 'student' in places still. Have also included as much fact from this discussion page as a could gleam and verify.

Feedback

 Good update, but as someone else mentions possibly a little too in depth.  Also how advisable is it to list every piece of equipment in each department?  MAkes the wiki entry a bitr more like a shopping list or menu ;)  Have edited some opinionated sections such as the PE gumf.
Do you want to go through and edit that up or shall we?  Can keep in that there are these facilities available but location and amounts is a bit OTT

--17:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)~~--PriorySchool 17:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Tone

This article still seems to need a lot of work done: the tone is too informal for an article and some of the information is too detailed: who wants to know how pupils address their teachers informally? I think something along the lines of Loughborough Grammar School's format would be more apt here.

EvocativeIntrigue _{TALK | EMAIL} 01:10, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Revision As Per Discussion

Thank you for you're input on that matter Prioryschool I know you are busy at the moment. I wondered when I wrote it if it was a bit too detailed but was aiming for a school prospectus style. Have revised all departments to make then less like a shopping list. Have also looked at all your edits and there all good and feel free to revise further if you think it is still required.

EvocativeIntrigue you're input is also welcome but I feel that some of the specific student information distinguishes us and stops us becoming just another school on Wikipedia however I have removed the priory language section and please feel free to bring to our attention any specific areas you think need major revision.

On a down side I was disappointed to see people vandalizing the article. Yes 81.98.148.109 and Fugee (I believe the same person?) I’m referring to you. Please read the Wiki rules and try to keep your edits neutral and constructive. If you believe your edits have merit then feel free to disuses them here.

Thanks again all for your input on bringing this article up to code!

Minuszero 18:36, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Extremely crufty new additions

This has to be one of the most crufty school articles that I have seen in a long time. This article includes all kinds of unreferenced unimportant statements about unimportant people and things. For example:

• This department is run by Ms Poulter(brilliant teacher).

Don't mention people unless they are important enough to garner their own article. DO NOT create an article about them simply to hav ethem included here.

• Much controversy arose following the naming of the houses and the main rumour that circulated the school was that the Harry Potter house names received the most votes but the teachers decided these names where inappropriate and decided to go with the classical elements instead. This is denied by the staff and so far no proof has arisen.

Wow! Completely unreferenced student legend here. This needs to go, ASAP.

• Priory has 4 Main IT rooms (including the Library) all able to hold a full class with one PC per student. There are also 4 Smaller IT rooms that hold up to 10 students in each although currently 3 of there are out of service for refurbishment. Many rooms have PC's available to use and each student has their own logon and personal space so their files are available on any computer they use at school as well as at home via an internet link to the schools servers

Honestly... No One Cares^TM. These are things that are not important to readers on Wikipedia, which is a GLOBAL audience. The global audience does not care that there are three IT rooms currently out of service. Even inside the school, very few would find this information useful enough for inclusion in this article, I imagine.

• A large drama studio with lighting and control booth. The department is headed by Mrs Ient. Many students have been saddened by the loss of Mrs Chambers, a drama teacher who has quickly become very popular.

Again, unreferenced unimportant people and things.

• Referred to by some students as "The Unteachables" and is used for one to one teaching of students that would otherwise be abandoned by other schools to support them and help them back into mainstream

More unreferenced junk.

• This could possibly the greatest thing about the schoool if it was used properly. Chapels are used to biase the students into a Christian Religion. No student in the school remembers a speaker who wasn't Christian?

Holy N! P! O! V!, Batman!

These are not the only examples; I could probably cite 90% of the article as I did above. Please, we make the internet not suck. Live up to that motto and fix it. — Scm83x ^{hook 'em} 19:29, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

*sigh*

Well in my attempt to make the article more insightful I appear to ventured into the unstable and debated realms of crufting. (Note to Scm83X: Might be a good idea to put a link so non-savvy users can find out what Crufting (fancruft) is.)

As encoraged by the admins during to edit war on this page I attempted to expand the article and give it more depth and intrest but after trawling Wiki I find schools are best left to a couple of paragraphs and hope that it leads them to the schools website that they find has a greater level of detail (*nudge nudge Prioryschool* :P). I'm glad that this was reviewed and sorted. It's why i put the major revision tag on.

I shall cease in my expanding of the article and resume my vandalism patrol. Just A quick gripe about the Wiki community. It does seem that very often new users are quickly shot down and reverted / changed by the "Super" users of Wiki. It does give a feel that because you’re new everything you do is wrong and this can be discouraging. Also the edit guidelines are a little difficult to understand as there are across several articles. Maybe a nice Key Points Article?

</rant> Anyway may Wiki Live long, Prosper And Not Suck!

Minuszero 09:37, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Wow...

This is all very silly.

You don't need to go into so much detail about the school's facilities and legends etcetera...

Just say what is significant about the school compared to others.. Like a pamphlet.

- Green Gecko

Fair use rationale for Image:Priorylogo.gif

Image:Priorylogo.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 15:56, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Regarding addition of an incident on May about last day

I have taken the liberty of removing this information about an event and integrating the same into the section on "Present day". I dont think it merits a separate section with detailed reporting of the incident, per the policy on WP:SCHOOL and WP:INFO. Prashanthns (talk) 11:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

On review, I feel the information does not belong in the school article at all. Removing it. Please justify re-inclusion here. Thanks. Prashanthns (talk) 15:22, 19 May 2008 (UTC)