Talk:St. Lawrence College, Ramsgate

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is related to the WikiProject Schools. This Project is an attempt to write quality articles about schools around the world. You can discuss the Project at its talk page.
	Current Collaborations:	Greenwich High School - New Albany High School (Indiana) - St. Mary's High School (Calgary) - St Albans School (Hertfordshire) - Wesley College, Melbourne - Pope John Paul II Catholic Secondary School - Mundelein High School

---

The school was relatively anti-technology when I was there in the mid-80s. The fact they have internet access in several houses now seems to indicate things are starting to change. I see the food hasn't changed tho :-) Is it still fish fingers and baked beans for breakfast?

Keep the info coming, much appreciated!

[edit] Joe Bloggs or John Doe or whatever

Dear 139.165.200.114: I removed the section about the former pupils the link that was provided for a Joe Bloggs does not lead to an actual person. If there really was a former pupil named Joe Bloggs, and he really was the Prime Minister, please feel free to reinclude that section and provide a real link. My intend was not vandalism, as you might have noticed that the article was actually improved by what I added (complete list of houses from the official webpage, a complete sentence for the introduction instead of just "..."). If you want an empty section for former pupils, fine, I don't object. If the only entry in there is bogus (or at least it seems like that to me and probably everybody else clicking on the name that used to be there), I don't think it justifies a whole section. If that Joe Bloggs was only an entry to show what it should be like, please specify that inside the section, so people are not misleaded. Together with the whole section about the "nasty food" most of what was on that page seemed like vandalism to me. Again, my intend was not vandalism. I have quite a few edits in Wikipedia, and this time is the first time someone seemed to object to my edits. BigBen212 00:58, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Dear BigBen212: Most of your edit was removal. Unless you are adding better information I don't you are justified to remove (unless of course the information is indisputably wrong or offensive). I think the information about the school's IT infrastructure you removed doesn't fall into the latter category.

It's not what was written about the internet, but how it was written that led me to believe it's bogus. If that was your edit and you felt that I was reverting it for no good reason, do me a favor, revert my edit and I'm going to drop this page from my watchlist and not care anymore. Don't be surprised, though, if others edit in the same way that I did, because: "but unluckly, you can't download anything in the school network, many web page were banned without good reason MSN, ICQ were banned." would not be considered NPOV. I'd suggest you read that page before you continue editing. Further, if you still think that my edit was uncalled for, please don't hesitate contacting one of the administrators, drop them a line in their talk page and complain about me and explain your reasons. BigBen212 17:06, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

BigBen212, it's not my contribution that you deleted and I have no idea who the contributor is. I'm just a former pupil of this school, that's why I started the entry. If you think the other contributor's input isn't neutral (and I would agree with you) then by all means edit it to make it more balanced. Other people will pass after you and question your neutrality and make further changes. But I have made it pretty clear that I'm not questioning your neutrality. I'm saying that content shouldn't be deleted simply because it doesn't suit your point of view! If you go round wikipedia deleting text that doesn't suit you, then yes I think administrators should be contacted.

Dear 139.165.200.114: Does this meet your expectations? BigBen212 04:00, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Possible vandalism?

At 00:42, 9 Apr 2005, user 207.218.152.146 changed "Tower and Lodge were created in 1989" to "Tower and Lodge were created in 1889". This could be vandalism, keeping in mind that 207.218.152.146 has vandalised pages before (but may be a dynamically assigned IP). Could someone please validate this statement and fix it if it is indeed sneaky vandalism.

Someone42 10:49, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Seems to be a valid change. Lodge (http://www.slcuk.com/seniorschool/houses/lodge.html) has been named this in 1929, but it has been a house before then. I can't seem to find that kind of information for Tower (http://www.slcuk.com/seniorschool/houses/tower.html). 1989 seems unlikely anyway, since that school is a lot older than that. BigBen212 16:00, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Removed reference to one "Legendary" former pupil

Hello, I removed the reference to the former pupil that had recently been added. If this person is worthy of addition then please add the information again and justify the notability of this information.I also removed the word Legendary from the title of the section. Politepunk 10:23, 9 March 2006 (UTC)