Talk:Joyce Kilmer Middle School

message: :Image:KilmerMS.png 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 insure 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 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 22:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:KilmerMS.png

message: The no-touching rule section only gives voice to advocates but not opponents. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 01:17, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Opponents' position is clearly stated in the first sentence Tedickey (talk) 01:29, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: How so? The first sentence merely describes what the policy is. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 01:30, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It describes it as strict, and employs a straw man to detract from the school board's position.  The entire topic appears to be a soapbox by one IP-editor. Tedickey (talk) 01:54, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Hm. Didn't think of the word "strict" as clearly summing up a position. If that's how you read it, it should either be re-worded to make it clear that "strict" is the opinion of the opposing side -- or, perhaps better yet, the entire section could be removed per WP:SOAP... no? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 05:50, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV 

message: There is no longer a "no touch" policy at Kilmer Middle School, as the old principal that enforced the rule was fired. I will delete the section in 24 hours if no one is opposed.-- 00:40, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Added the section back with edits.  Mostly changed verb tense.  The issue is the policy did exist. It is relevant because history can not be erased simply because it is resolved one way or another. This policy did make headlines and was covered in Reader's Digest, and various other outlets - because it is and was a big deal to tell kids they can not hug or shake hands.  Also, do we have cite's that the old principal was fired? or was she transferred? Has the new principal stated the rule is no longer in effect?   I still changed the tense because I have no reason to doubt what you say, but it does not change the relevancy, right???  68.119.67.154 (talk) 21:55, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I shouldn't have deleted it. There is a cite for the fact that there is a new principal, and that is the school's main website. The current principal is Douglas A. Tyson, different than the one involved in  the incident.-- 13:55, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Remove "No contact rule controversy"

message: Tedickey, The person who deleted the 'No Contact' section on the Kilmer Middle School page has stated he should not have deleted the section.  You undid my edit without any change except to state that the...talk page at FCPS did not say the section should be there.  As I am sure you are aware some editors have stated it should be there - if not please read the talk section again.  I feel it should be in both places.  That does not change the fact that there was a consensus that it should at the least be on the Kilmer page.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.119.67.154 (talk) 19:42, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kilmer Middle School 

message: Do we really need five references to the "No Contact Rule" section?-- 21:00, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: "I think it is pretty cut and dried the way it is now and is okay but if the cites are gone the issue will be raised about..." --- What? -- 19:57, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  5?