Talk:Monte Vista High School (Danville, California)

Schools Low‑importance

	Schools portal This article is related to WikiProject Schools, a collaborative effort 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.SchoolsWikipedia:WikiProject SchoolsTemplate:WikiProject Schoolsschool articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

California

	California portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

just help delete...

"SRV is considered a better school than Monte Vista". I don't know whether it means in the school sport or if it's just being bias.

srv has lower test scores and iirc, mv also did better in sports. so from an academic/sport pov, MV is better than san ramon. however from a personal standpoint the generally attitude of srv was much better than mv. 76.25.115.99 06:33, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marla Sokoloff

I don't believe Marla Sokoloff went to MV. She would have been '98 or '99 and according to her IMDB bio she moved to LA in '94. [1] --MrCalifornia 00:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bree Olsen

Can anyone confirm that Bree Olsen went to MV or is this just vandalism? --MrCalifornia 16:42, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know that her younger siblings have all gone to Monte Vista, however i can't confirm if she did. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.247.105.103 (talk) 20:53, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral POV

This article has a serious lack of neutral POV, some of which I have tried to correct. It also has extensive amounts of unsourced information and also information that is probably unnecessary, such as the names of the players leading the sports teams. IMO, the article was clearly written by students or, more likely, parents of students at the school. The article should read like an encyclopedia, not a fan club for MV sports teams. Tiger Khan (talk) 04:03, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While you comment might have been from a while back, I left an NPOV tag on the main page. Also you are correct that the Athletics section is extremely length compared to the rest of the article (which there is almost nothing). --ShakataGaNai ^Talk 20:33, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Petition To Stop This Page From Being Edited By People Without Usernames

This page seems to attract one or more vandals, so I vote that a moderator place it under some sort of protection. If this isn't the place to make this case, I'm sorry, but I wasn't sure where to go. Tiger Khan (talk) 18:09, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately thats not going to happen. Very few pages qualify for permanent protection, this is not one of them. Also, simply from experience, I can tell you that admin's will not approve a semi-protect on this page because its not vandalized often enough or by different users. In this case, we just have to deal with individual IP addresses that are vandalizing. --ShakataGaNai ^Talk 20:37, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No history?

How odd that such an historic school has no history section here. When Monte Vista opened in the mid '60s, its experiments -- e.g, no dress code, no bells or hall passes, weekly "open afternoon" -- were the talk of the education community. Students and faculty often saw observers from around the country visiting classrooms. And then the conservative local community forced out the superintendent who created it. But Wikipedia requires documentation, but that might be hard to find. TedC (talk) 20:00, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, everything should be verifiable. And unverifiable info may be removed. That would include the entire "athletics" section. Will Beback talk 04:31, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:

There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:23, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Monte Vista High School (Danville, California). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071011053654/http://vogue.co.uk:80/whos_who/Christy_Turlington/default.html to http://www.vogue.co.uk/whos_who/Christy_Turlington/default.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 5 June 2024).

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:24, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Does "Racial graffiti" fall under WP:NOTNEWS?

There is a question whether this edit should belong on this page or not. One editor believes it doesn't as per WP:NOTNEWS. I believe it extends beyond that guideline. Let's discuss. roguegeek (talk·cont) 03:47, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New content that is disputed stays out until there is a concensus. I've removed it pending a concensus. It is on you, Roguegeek to convince me and any other interested editors that this belongs, not the other way around. So please by all means explain how something that happened yesterday doesn't fall under NOTNEWS. John from Idegon (talk) 06:23, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As per Wikipedia:DR, I don't see anywhere it says disputed content automatically gets removed, but if you point me to policy that does, you can go ahead and remove it. Either way, it sounds like we need more editors on this. Be that as it may and how it pertains to NOTNEWS, it is 1) not original reporting, 2) not some routine announcement and has enduring notability in that it's an effect of a larger, systemic issue and has continued to escalate, 3) is not focused on an individual, and 4) n/a here as per #3. roguegeek (talk·cont) 09:13, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Monte Vista High School (Danville, California). 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 5 June 2024).

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) 00:26, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]