Talk:STEM School Highlands Ranch

Revision 11:18, 29 April 2019
Where is revision 11:18, 29 April 2019? This revision is mentioned in a incident related to this page, shouldn't this revision be added as a diff to the article that mentions it? -- Eng. M.Bandara -Talk  10:36, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * , deleted it per RD3.    SITH   (talk)   18:06, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Seeing as that particular revision is mentioned in another article and backed up with WP:RS, I would hardly say that it meets RD3 criteria, the revision is very much relevant now. -- Eng. M.Bandara -Talk  00:58, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * That there exists a reliable source discussing the revision does not change the fact that it's a "grossly inappropriate threat or attacks". GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:40, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Should I remind you that WP is not censored? Can you link me to the policy grounds for your removal of that revision? -- Eng. M.Bandara -Talk  22:51, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:RD3 GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:05, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I have made an Rfc, I don't believe it meets the criteria for RD3. The revision contained no Threat, it was a Question. -- Eng. M.Bandara -Talk  00:14, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm not an oversighter (turns out being a burly alpha male with hair on his chest is not only not necessary, it's not even sufficient!) but I'm going to guess that this isn't the only school article with revision-deleted threats like this in its history, so odds are good it's merely graffiti, not a historical artifact. If it turns out during the investigation of the attack which I suspect is going on that it was actually posted as part of the attack, then there becomes an argument to undelete it, per Ignore all rules. We can have that argument then; does being a historical artifact mean we should keep vandalism around? But until then, I think the odds are that we should be treating it as just a threat; and it pretty clearly is a threat, just like the proverbial lounging around someone's business making comments about how flammable it is, is a threat. --GRuban (talk) 11:02, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * You don't need to be an oversighter, this revision is not oversighted. You do need to be an administrator, normally, though in this unusual case it's plainly documented in news sources. As for being a "historical artifact" it doesn't matter, the revision should have been deleted and should stay deleted, because that's our policy; it can be documented by media sources without us continuing to host it. If a threatening edit having been published on Wikipedia days before the attack is a notable piece of the encyclopedic coverage, then write an encyclopedic description of it into the article. The revision does not need to be visible for that. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:25, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

History Section
I have recently reworded (and improved) the history section. A lot of the information was incorrect, and did not have any verifying citations. Some of the information I have included I cannot figure out how to properly citate, so I was wondering if any of you can help me. Overall, the history section had large amounts of incorrect information with no sources. It was also displayed in a manner that seemed very repetitive (the overuse of "In 20xx", which I think could be better formatted into a paragraph style rather than bullet points), and included information that was not up to date (for example, the status of the STEM Sterling Ranch.)

Slightly unrelated, this article has a lot of information on KOSON. While KOSON technically owns STEM, they are seperate entities. Maybe we need to make that a seperate section or even page? --Caez247 (talk) 18:58, 8 April 2023 (UTC)


 * I created the KOSON section! I have determined due the lack of schools in this "network of schools", that they probably shouldn't have their own wiki page. --Caez247 (talk) 19:01, 21 May 2023 (UTC)