From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is related to WikiProject Schools, an attempt to write quality articles about schools around the world. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.	Schools Portal
???	This article has not yet received an importance rating within Schools. Please rate the article.

Contents 1 October 2007 2 November 2007 3 Scabies Outbreak 3.1 buses 3.2 uniform section 3.3 Original Research 3.4 The Ducks

[edit] October 2007

As a current pupil I cleaned up some of the recent changes to the school. The grammar was terrible and the previous edit had too many opinions (mostly negative). It's still not perfect though.

-(BrutusCirrus 22:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC))

[edit] November 2007

Using my nickname is totally unessecary. (BrutusCirrus 18:29, 6 November 2007 (UTC))

Please take more care over your spelling ("unessecary") to help maintain the high quality of contribution to wikipedia. Possibly use a spellchecker first if NECESSARY. (mlc409 20:29, 6 November 2007 (UTC))

"Riddlesdown High School is arguably well on its way to becoming Croydon's best state run high schools" This section has been removed. Please do not include personal opinions in articles otherwise they can become biased. wasteman find sumfin beta 2 do apart frm criticising ovas spellin 79.75.59.121 12:12, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

y is hi on aboot speeling for. dc141 10:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Also, please do not delete whole blocks of the article as this can make the school appear in a biased manner and so can reduce the factual integrity of Wikipedia as a whole. Thank you. Ichbinbored ^talk 10:59, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I have noticed also that large amounts of information added by myself seem to have been removed, interestingly what has been removed does not paint the school in a favourable light, but is none the less factual, please do not do this, as it presents the school in a less objective manor. This leads me to wonder if it is being edited by a biased staff member. dc141 11:02, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I have removed quite a lot of information which does not meet Wikipedia's basic standards of verifiability, neutral point of view, and no original research. This includes things like your art criticism and speculation of whether the headmaster can use a computer[1]. Please provide reliable sources for additions of content, and refrain from adding your own personal commentary and views. Thanks. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:47, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I feel that the point about the Art adn the headmaster and his IT skills are valid, i am not saying that he could or couldn't use a computer, i am mearly outlining the speculation and the feeling of the student body, which is a very important part of the school. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fc02dcurtis (talk • contribs) 11:17, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Scabies Outbreak

I've removed the Scabies and Trivia sections. Firstly, the Trivia is ridiculous as the un-sourced information is about a past headmaster and not really Wiki-worthy. I removed the Scabies Outbreak I removed as it is also hardly wiki-worthy too. Furthermore, I think you are over analyzing the situation, especially the letter. At the time of writing there have only been two confirmed cases of Scabies. -(BrutusCirrus (talk) 14:20, 23 November 2007 (UTC))

Replied on your talk page. Ichbinbored ^talk 17:10, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

"wiki-worthy" perhaps you'd like to do some research. there are many other articles on wikipedia that list information about disease. therefore removing it is somewhat unnecessary (notice the spelling). Given that there was also reference to the topic, which has been deleted for "copyright infringement" because a user reported it (I wonder who). The facts don't lie so I'm going to put it up there again, given that there are sources that confirm what is being said I don't expect it to go missing

dc141 (talk) 22:25, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, so seeing as the term 'outbreak' is used to describe a small, localised amount of people who have contracted an infection/disease, I do seem to recall that only 4 people contracted it (that's the localised part destroyed then). Seeing as this is only 0.2% of the entire school (and only affected two people from said number of year groups), and only 0.0000006% of the population of England, I hardly think that this 'outbreak' is worthy to mention. For example, if a chemical plant has a minor spillage that affects a minority under 1%, nobody would report it and describe it as an event large enough to warrant an entire section to itself of an encyclopaedia page... however, if it were serious enough to close the place for a few weeks, that would be deemed worthy of mentioning. Placing idiosyncratic comments and articles on the page is a dreadful waste of time and does not warrant an entirely separate section on the page, if even a mention. Oh, by the way, the sources should only be used to confirm facts that are relevant to the matter at hand, and the article. So what if other articles list information about disease? You've almost juxtaposed your own statement by saying that other articles are free to contain information regardless of importance, whereas you are clearly wanting to get this article onto the page for the sake of it being there. If you're going to add something, make sure it's worthy enough of being put up there. And also, don't use the discussion page as a board to snipe at other Wikipedia members - it gets you nowhere in the long run.

User:Rick 50000 (talk) 22:10, 27 February 2008

[edit] buses

we know that pupils behave poorly on buses as documented by the local newspaper, although contested by a few people, I too was on the bus at the time, and it was a small lump of what apeared to be concreate. also please refrain from making edits not in the best interest of wikipedia. Deleting content (even though it is factual) to support your own views is against the idea of Wikipedia and against the Idea of freedom of speech and fredom of information. also this is irritating, please don't do it.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Fc02dcurtis (talk • contribs) 08:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] uniform section

advance notice, its all factual and well known containing no original research, so anyone who edits or deletes as seems to keep happening every time a new piece of information is introduced, can only be assumed to be heavily biased in favour of the school, and very keen on the idea of censorship.

 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.194.82.4 (talk) 11:30, 13 May 2008 (UTC) 

[edit] Original Research

I'll second the point made on the Uniform Section. Seems that previous members of the school only want to make it seem stupid, so I'm imposing a citation banner, seeing as this original research near the bottom end of the article has no provenance (For example, the Jack Petchey scheme and the death of Mr. Goss (all it takes is a scan of a newsletter to confirm this)). If there are no citations within a certain time, the sub-articles will have to be removed, as this does not tie in with Wikipedia guidelines (also, I am a member at the school). Also, the use of the word 'forced' for example in the uniform section is extremely biased... at no point do Riddlesdown 'force' us to wear anything, it is just rules and regulations. If the language used in the article does not clear up as well, a bias banner will be making it's way to this article as well. User:Rick 50000 (talk) 22:55, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Ducks

Apparently they got stolen or lost, I haven't seen them in a while. I heard today that the the fifth year was susposedly to blame after leaving. Does anyone know what happened to them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by BrutusCirrus (talk • contribs) 18:08, 3 June 2008 (UTC)