Talk:Lawrence Sheriff School
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
some of these 'facts' up for deletion are infact true —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.129.242.140 (talk • contribs) .
- If you feel strongly about this, justifying your changes so that Wikipedians may make an informed choice whether to keep or revert them would be more sensible than repeatedly editing the article to reflect your point of view. -- Technostalgia 22:50, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
People are going to keep trying to edit it. It'll just become all the Lawrence Sheriff kids who have Wikipedia accounts editing it next. The only way to do it is to put some information about the unhappiness about the proposed changes, and that might stop them vandalising it again. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gamesmaster (talk • contribs) .
- Thank you for your well-written addition to the "Future plans" section. I'm concerned that it might violate Wikipedia's NPOV policy, but if your allegations of controversy are true, then maybe they should be documented. I'll leave it up to fellow Wikipedians to decide. -- Technostalgia 20:43, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Open letter to governors
After careful consideration, I decided to removed the entire "Future plans" section. Without in-depth knowledge of the school, I don't feel that I can do a good job of rewriting it in a neutral fashion. I don't believe such a controversial subject belongs on Wikipedia, at least not in the main Lawrence Sheriff School article, so I have created an article called "open letter to governors" which students may edit (intelligently, I hope) in order to express their points of view. In due course, this will be brought to the attention of the local press.
To expand on that, it would belong in Wikipedia, but only if a reliable source can be found for the criticism (such as a local newspaper article documenting the controversy, or - at a stretch - the minutes of a governors' meeting, or something like that). Our policies of no original research and not being a soapbox mean that editors cannot simply write their own criticsm of subjects into articles. --Sam Blanning(talk) 09:12, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
- I have added evidence from a school newsletter from its website to support a previous edit of the 'future plans' section. --OranginaMan 19:25, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Mark Baird
I have removed the paragraph concerning Mark Baird, the 2005/6 Head Boy, as I feel it is not particularly noteworthy and no source has been provided. -- Technostalgia 11:46, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] "T-unit"
I have removed the following paragraph from the main article:
There has recently been much dispute as to the newly appointed head boys of the past two years. Even with much campaigning by original members of "T-unit", their pleas fell on deaf ears, much to the dismay of every other student in the sixth form.
I have no idea who or what the "T-unit" is. This paragraph would also need to be backed up by a reliable source in order to be suitable for inclusion in a Wikipedia article. -- Technostalgia 11:00, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Sounds like mindful vandalism to me. Gamesmaster 18:44, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Further vandalism
There has been a revert to the original vandalised article. I changed it back and posted a message on the user in question's talk page. Hopefully this was just an isolated incident. Gamesmaster 18:23, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Addendum: another anonymous user has added to the "Future Plans" section, giving a mature and sensible point: however, it is clearly not NPOV and violates the non-sandbox principle, so I have reverted it and explained my reasons to the user in question. Gamesmaster 17:18, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
