Talk:Reigate Grammar School

message: :Image:RGS-logo-bi-level-1200.jpg 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 00:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fair use rationale for Image:RGS-logo-bi-level-1200.jpg 

message: I must question whether the list of heads of school acctually adds to the article. Indeed, does it not contravene child protection laws to list the 2007 heads of school without their consent, as they would be under 18? Notably, however, currently, the 2007 entry is wrong.
Additionally, there seems to be a blank section entitled the Pilgrim. Might it be a good idea to either add to this section or delete it altogether? 79.67.184.92 19:06, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not the school wesite. It is not a blog. It is an encyclopaedia article which should draw its material from published secondary sources. Unless we have published sources about the school magazine it is not notable. Unless a list of headmasters is verifiable by reliable sources it does not belong here.--Charles (talk) 19:07, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

text: The reference was to "heads of school", not "headmasters": Different thing altogether. The section has long gone, anyway for thye reasons anon suggested. Bagunceiro (talk) 20:06, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problematic sections 

message: I believe that this section is both noteworthy and newsworthy. Is there any reason why it shouldn't be included in the article? MurphiaMan 15:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It makes perfect sense to include it to me.  Not only did it make several national newspapers, but it would be important to know for both those with a casual interest and prospective parents.  It's more relevant than many other sections in this article. Turkeyphant 22:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I think it's important that this section is retained and vandalism is reverted. 81.100.164.49 16:57, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

text: This is still an ongoing issue in the newspapers and has provoked much discussion in the UK as to schools' role outside of lessons and how much Facebook snooping is acceptable. The school has already been shown to try to censor this information at other places, so it's even more important to keep a record of this here.  Turkeyphant 13:58, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The content was removed (and I have again removed it per WP:BURDEN) for quite legitimate reasons.  The only source on it is the Daily Mail.  We do not use the Daily Mail for a source here.  Even if BURDEN is met, it still fails the pillar policy WP:NOT.  Unless or until reliable sourcing can be provided it should stay out without question.  If reliable sources can be provided here that show that this is more than just a news story, a discussion can ensure here about whether it meets NOTNEWS and school article guidelines.  Until there are sources there is nothing to talk about.  No one here cares about anyone else's opinion of how important this is.  It must be shown through the use of reliable sources and the application of Wikipedia policy and guidelines that this content belongs.  Please do not waste other editor's time with WP:ILIKEIT or WP:OSE arguements.  Thanks. John from Idegon (talk) 20:22, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dogging section 

message: One or more portions of this article duplicated other source(s).  Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you.  --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:25, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright problem removed 

message: An idea what MUN is? Fmph (talk) 08:09, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: This is also going back a long way and was clarified at the time. Not very well, actually - I've tidied up the order a bit but the phrase "for the past 16 years" needs to be changed to a non-relative term ("since YYYY") to stop it getting out of date. I don't know when it started so can't do that. Bagunceiro (talk) 20:12, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  MUN 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Reigate Grammar School. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090107140137/http://www.isi.net/reports/2005/0901_05.htm to http://www.isi.net/reports/2005/0901_05.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:23, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Reigate Grammar School. 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/20090913021021/http://www.reigategrammar.org/about/history.htm to http://www.reigategrammar.org/about/history.htm
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.isi.net/reports/2005/0901_05.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140812052606/http://www.reigategrammar.org/ben-edwards-rgs-1978-1983 to http://www.reigategrammar.org/ben-edwards-rgs-1978-1983
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:47, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified