Talk:Ridgewood High School (Florida)

Sources

See Wikipedia:Verifiability. You need only read the nutshell, specifically that uncited statements "may be challenged or removed by any editor." Wikipedia articles must be substantiated by reliable sources. —Centrx→talk • 17:12, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

The statements in question were challenged. If immediate removal for the statements was justified I would have removed them myself. That's why a "citation needed" tag was applied. Primary sources existed for the statements in question, but I was indicating that I could not immediately find secondary reliable sources for. Your housekeeping skills are marvelous, but I would suggest that you read beyond the nutshell of WP:V to gain a better understanding of what's involved in sourcing statements. While I appreciate your zeal in such issues, I would suggest taking a look at a Partial solution to rampant deletionism, and review Jimbo Wales' statements regarding high school articles. Jimbo seems to take a slightly more permissive view of the issue, and I would suggest taking the issue up with him directly if you have a refutation for his sense of the issue. Alansohn 18:04, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I know the issues with sourcing quite well. I have also read that four-year-old e-mail, and more recent e-mails by Jimmy Wales emphasizing that Wikipedia articles must have sources, and reliable ones at that, such as the two e-mails mentioned at the top of Template talk:Fact. (A note about the prior removal, [1]: this was actually a copyright infringement from the school website by a recent editor.) —Centrx→talk • 18:16, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I fail to understand your actions, as you have removed extensive material from the article that in no way shape or form violates copyright. Your reckless and malicious removal constitutes vandalism, plain and simple. Do you truly believe that the school alma mater is a copyright violation? Are you really that ignorant of such basic issues? As the article has been updated, the dozen or so sources in article are reliable, verifiable and come from multiple non-trivial sources. I fail to understand your refusal to recognize the FHSAA as a secondary reliable source, but as stated in the AfD, several additional sources have been added to satisfy any and all concerns. Are there a sufficient number of sources now to demonstrate notability? If you have any currently relevant issues with this article, please let me know so that they can be addressed to meet your own personal standards of notability. Alansohn 18:56, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

No, this is copyright infringement; the history section is copied directly from [2]. I am not sure where the rest is from, but given the style of the writing and who added it, that is likely copied as well. —Centrx→talk • 23:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, you need to stop being so hostile. —Centrx→talk • 23:13, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it looks like the article was copied from the very beginning. You may also need to take a look at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. —Centrx→talk • 23:17, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

While the material in the lead was sourced from [3], all material has been reworded and poses no copyright issue. Why would I look at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest? I guess I could take a look to see how you have misinterpreted it. For someone who throws around a lot of references to policy, you would be well served by actually making an effort to understand them. Alansohn 07:16, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Given that your creation of this page had a tag-line of "By David Chauncey", the person who wrote the history on the school website, it would appear that you are either affiliated with the school or infringed on the copyright of the author of the school's website. It is exactly the sort of text dump behavior that is commonly found with people advertising their company, school, etc. —Centrx→talk • 00:59, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I created this article, and I'm not David Chauncey. If David Chauncey created the text and the article, whose copyright is he violating? What company is he advertising? Who is this "you: you are referring to? What is the copyright violation you claim is occurring? Stop throwing out charges and buzzwords and start providing details, so they can be addressed. Alansohn 01:29, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Alansohn created this page, [4], which contains the line at the bottom "by David E. Chauncey" and which is partly directly copied from the school's website, [5]. Therefore, Alansohn either illegally copied and published this text, or Alansohn was authorized by David Chauncey or the school, depending on which holds the copyright, to publish it. Therefore, Alansohn either illegally copied and published this text, or Alansohn is affiliated with the school, or Alansohn created a non-neutral, unformatted, uncited, and otherwise junk text dump copied from elsewhere but without its copyright being established through Wikimedia. —Centrx→talk • 01:46, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Before you make any further unsubstantiated allegations, please read the text of the AfD for the circumstances of the creation of this article, which I in fact created. Other than tossing around some details of hypothetical copyright issues that do not exist in the current document in question, you have added nothing and defined even less. If there is a specific issue with the current article as it exists, please raise it so that it can be addressed. Otherwise, you are accomplishing nothing other than being destructive. Alansohn 03:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, so you moved a junk article and possible copyright infringement. Anyway we are left with the current article, where the History section is a derivative of the copy and as such should be replaced or the copyright holder should e-mail the Wikimedia Foundation granting permission under the GFDL, or place a notice to that effect on the website. Second, nothing except the sports section has third-party sources. These are necessary for a neutral, verifiable encyclopedia article. —Centrx→talk • 03:43, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Insertion of Primarysources and Notability tags

The article survived the AfD, with an overwhelming majority of participants indicating that the article should be kept. The clear majority consensus is that the article is notable, and contains all the necessary references from reliable and verifiable sources to satisfy claims of notability. Immediately after the AfD was completed, Primarysources and Notability tags were added to the article. As the AfD for the article was closed as a Keep, that should be prima facie evidence that notability has been met and sources have been provided. The article that survived AfD had 14 sources, only one of which was from the school itself. Everyone of the 13 other sources is from a reliable and verifiable secondary source, by definition independent and unconnected with the school itself. I find it hard to understand what the issues are, but no explanation whatsoever has been provided to explain why we should be revisiting issues settled minutes before. As indicated in the AfD, concerns were raised that the article does not meet the notability standards required by WP:SCHOOL. The article makes several explicit claims of notability for the school, in full compliance with WP:SCHOOL. Unless there are legitimate issues being raised -- and I unfortunately must question whether these tags were applied in good faith -- I would sincerely hope that the user inquestion will accept the majority consensus and move on. Alansohn 03:55, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

The only section with sources unaffiliated with the school is the sports section. No other part of the article has independent sources. The AfD keeps the article on Wikipedia, to admit of reliable sources being added. Wikipedia articles need to be substantiated reliable sources, and if those sources are not added, the article will eventually be deleted. —Centrx→talk • 04:02, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know or understand what issue you have with this article, but you are creating requirements that are completely non-existent. I don't know what problem prevents you're seeing the fact that there are thirteen separate references, each one of which comes from independent reliable and verifiable secondary sources. The AfD demonstrates that there is a clear consensus that this article meets any and all Wikipedia standards for notability and sources. I agree with your statement "Wikipedia articles need to be substantiated reliable sources, and if those sources are not added, the article will eventually be deleted." The problem is that this article meets every aspect of the standard and yet you still won't give up. Please raise a specific issue or move on to something else. There are hundreds of thousands of articles that have no sources. Find one (or maybe even two) of those articles and work up your magic, where there might be some benefit. Even better, why not spend some time improving articles that you find deficient by your own arbitrary standards, rather than trying to destroy articles that meet all requisite criteria. Alansohn 04:54, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

None of those independent sources are outside of the Sports section, and you should read Wikipedia:Notability. —Centrx→talk • 05:00, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Stop this already. I've read WP:Notability. The people who participated in the AfD read WP:Notability. Our consensus was that this article meetsWP:Notability and that it provides ample references that meet WP:RS and WP:V. Why do refuse to accept this? Part of working as a group on an encyclopedia is to realize that even your best-intentioned opinions may not be accepted by the group as a whole. This is what happened in this AfD, in which your peculiar interpretations were resoundingly rejected. Please read WP:Consensus and please find something else to busy yourself with. Your efforts to try to imply that there is an issue here, when they have been addressed by the AfD, are entirely counterproductive. Alansohn 05:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

There are no reliable sources on any non-sports part of the article. That is quite clear. The School symbols and Learning community sections don't appear to have any sources at all. Are they hidden away somewhere in the website, or how do you know they are even true? —Centrx→talk • 05:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Sources have been added to meet your demands. Verify away, my dear. Alansohn 06:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Those aren't third-party sources. Everything except the sports section is just links to the schools website. Please read Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Notability. —Centrx→talk • 04:26, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Notable Alumni

Can we please only list Alumni in this section with actual credibility and a developed career rather than people who have graduated less than a few years and may be at the start of a good career but have gained no public notoriety. Let's be resonable especially compared to the others listed in this section. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Incepta4 (talk • contribs) 15:05, August 22, 2007 (UTC).

Agreed. Editing to that effect now. Justinthebull (talk) 18:34, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

How about this? Make a no-bullshit entry about the school. When I went there (graduated in 2005) Sub-par teachers were in proliferation and horrific children attend aforementioned school, and the entire graduating class of 2005 is noted for a high "oops pregnancy" rate and low success rate in personal as well as professional life. Let it also be noted how cliquish the place is, and the high rate of teens who are scarred for life, having attended the place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rams2005 (talk • contribs) 08:15, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

How about no. How about we keep petty, juvenile gripes off of Wikipedia. I'm a RHS grad, too, and I hated the place, but you don't see me (or anyone else) clamoring to add a bunch of histrionic drivel based on personal grudges. Memphisheel (talk) 04:27, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I have removed all alumni whose references are questionable, unverifiable, not WP:RS, and that do not necessarily assert sufficient notability of the subject. Unless perfectly substantiated, and a high level of notability is proven, they must not be restored. Editors are advised that unconstructive additions may be considered as disruptive editing and even vandalism, and can result in an immediate editing block.--Kudpung (talk) 09:27, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Ditto my message above. More additions removed today and page protected. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:58, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 31 August 2012

Under the academics section, please include that Ridgewood's Odyssey of the Mind team won both the Ranatra Fusca creativity award and the OMER award at the regional competition, taking home the most awards of any high school in attendance. Trongsin (talk) 07:17, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. A boat that can float! (watch me float!) 08:14, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ridgewood High School (Florida). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071007154657/http://www.fhsaa.org/records/rec_sb.pdf to http://www.fhsaa.org/records/rec_sb.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:53, 21 July 2016 (UTC)