Jump to content

Talk:George H. Moody Middle School

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Article redirected, please make any new comments at Talk:Henrico County Public Schools
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Make Corrections

[edit]

Earl Binns is no longer the principal. Arthur Raymond is th enew principal of George H. Moody Middle School.


That is not a picture of Moody Middle School. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.199.193.41 (talk) 13:06, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Yea Mr. Binns isnt the principle. I happen to go to this school and I am not an IB and frankly I think the public should know moody has a zoned group too. Although we only make up 1/3 of the school. I am in the 7th grade at this school. It isn't that i don't like the IB's trust me I like some of them just not most of them XD. -Signed MMS student —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.246.153.111 (talk) 22:41, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IB people r awesome! I love it especially 6th gradeee,......... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilblsajct (talkcontribs) 21:46, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Merger with Henrico County Public Schools

[edit]

I do not like the idea to merge this article with Henrico County Pubic Schools. Henrico Count Public Schools is the school division, and George H. Moody Middle school is the school itself. We could just create a portal or a group.

► Wireless Keyboard ◄ 17:00, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removed non notable material about sexting

[edit]

I removed this as non notable unless there is more to the story since this is very common. --Threeafterthree (talk) 21:29, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

support deletion. Active Banana (bananaphone 20:23, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Serious problems

[edit]

We cannot use material that is only referenced to the school's own website. We need third-party sources for anything beyond basic facts like the address. I will continue to remove anything that fails this criterion. --John (talk) 19:15, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

this is a valid statement. Active Banana (bananaphone 20:24, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've looked for secondary sources, and can't find them - perhaps other editors can provide. In the interim, I've tagged the places where primary sources only were used (all of the references are such), and also tagged where items have no reference whatsoever (e.g., the Technology section). JoeSperrazza (talk) 15:53, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this here at all? Propose redirect.

[edit]


Let's work on improving the article

[edit]

It would help if prior editors of this article would:

  • indent your comments using colons
  • sign sign your comments, at the end, by typing in four tildes ("~"), like this ~~~~
  • assume good faith - there is no "conspiracy" nor taking sides, just a need to have proper references and text
  • discuss, don't edit war

Look, folks, I want to help, as do other editors. Help us help you:

  1. The article needs proper references.I marked them in the body of the text with tags "citation needed" and/or "non-primary citations needed". You are clearly passionate about this article (and, by inference, the school). Great! Find the references and add them. I found at least one, and added it myself.
  2. Don't add new text that lacks proper references. It doesn't help the article. Length does not make a good article.
  3. Most importantly, have some assertion of notability in the text, and provide a reference for that. Is it being the first IB whatever? OK, help explain why that is notable. Start by explaining here, and let established editors help you craft the text. JoeSperrazza (talk) 00:50, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm with you. I thought that I had added additional sources for the new parts. Perhaps I did not.Encyclopedia Geek (talk) 00:56, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Great! I'm sorry to say, you did not. You added sources that were (a) Primary, (b) duplicates of what was there. You also added text previously removed as being not notable. It would be swell if you reverted the edits (that another prior editor put back) and then let's work through the pieces, one by one, as numbered above. JoeSperrazza (talk) 01:00, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. You also removed several of the citation tags, yet you said in your comments you intended to leave them. A first step would be understanding why the references are primary reference, and hence need improvement. Also, the proper method of putting in references would be a good thing to understand (look at the article - it is broken now). I'm offering to help! Post your references here, if you like, and I'll either explain how to add them, or add them for you, or explain why they're a duplicate (if they are) or primary (if they are). Thanks for your willingness to work, not just edit. JoeSperrazza (talk)
Look, Im sorrry to say that I agree with neither of you and will not even bother editing this page ever again. Just like that user a couple of days ago.Indextookviewsgoals (talk) 01:08, 13 January 2011 (UTC)signature[reply]
OK, I'm sorry, too. I'm not glad to see the article improved, and do want to encourage you to make note of your concerns here. However, if you're moving on, best wishes. JoeSperrazza (talk) 01:10, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"I'm not glad to see the article improved"- Wikipedia editors should assume good faith.74.110.198.236 (talk) 02:19, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was trying to say I want the article improved, and more help is better! JoeSperrazza (talk) 02:26, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad. Maybe we can get this project done. This page has so many issues! This, however, is a job for more than 2 or three users.74.110.198.236 (talk) 02:52, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll second that. I will countinue with this page, but think that User:Indextookviewsgoals is missing out.
I do not understand why the article on Sexting was removed. It appeared to be relevant to the school's history74.110.198.236 (talk) 01:53, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The technology setion seems to short. This is not a nutshell page.74.110.198.236 (talk) 01:54, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also, it would be beneficial if some of you all worked on the Henrico County Public Schools page, or the Robinson Secondary School page. Both of these articles are in far worse shape.74.110.198.236 (talk) 01:58, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No doubt. As volunteers we are all free to edit wherever we like, or not at all. This article is a dreadful mess. This school probably doesn't even merit an article. Could those dissenting from this view please provide evidence from third party sources of the validity of their views. --John (talk) 02:23, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let's get this article improved!

[edit]

Let's get this done, one step at a time. I know that it can be done, because it has been done before. Good luck to us all!74.110.198.236 (talk) 02:54, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edits like this are not constructiveJoeSperrazza (talk) 03:06, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. When does the anonymous editor believe this article has previously been better? I didn't see it in the history, it looks like it has always been pretty poor. --John (talk) 03:47, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
His IP account was blocked. JoeSperrazza (talk) 05:25, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sock puppets

[edit]

Encyclopedia Geek (talk · contribs) and Wkpdn (talk · contribs) are indefinitely blocked as sock puppets of Indextookviewsgoals (talk · contribs) who has been blocked for two weeks. --Dougweller (talk) 17:02, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Knowing that, the Talk Page history is particularly sad, as the socks argue with each other and make conflicting assertions:
This is more than sock puppetry - it is disruptive editing (and, if you include IP editor 74.110.198.236, for whom the sock puppet investigation clerk had "no comment", as it had already been temporarily blocked, for vandalism), then intentional damage was part of the agenda, too.
You've misread the last bit, the 'no comment' was just that, not related to the block. Dougweller (talk) 17:54, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks. What I was trying to say (which is what I thought) was that the clerk had no comment as he had not checked that IP, as it was already blocked (with the take-away point being that the IP was not CU'd). JoeSperrazza (talk) 18:30, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No Redirect

[edit]

I noticed that the redirect didn't seem definite. A few users back (not those sock puppets) tried to prevent the article from being redirected. I, like him/her, think that it is probably a local landmark. Anyway, I just wanted to mention that.Mountainous Terrain (talk) 23:30, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mountainous Terrain (talk · contribs) and Space Shuttle Endeavour (talk · contribs) are indefinitely blocked as sock puppets of Indextookviewsgoals (talk · contribs) who is now blocked indefinitely. JoeSperrazza (talk) 23:59, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Plus Sockpuppet326 (talk · contribs). I suggest the editor should Wikipedia:Let it go. JoeSperrazza (talk) 00:03, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.