Talk:Lawrence Sheriff School

message: some of these 'facts' up for deletion are infact true —Preceding unsigned comment 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Rubbish. Opposition seems to be increasingly widespread- I go to form time about twice weekly now, and despise almost the entirety of my form. 212.139.237.165 22:20, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Open letter to governors 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Mark Baird 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "T-unit" 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Further vandalism 

message: I think the Notable Old Laurentians section needs to be gone through, as there are some people listed there who are not particularly notable- for example I can't find any references to James Bryan online, so this may be a hoax. Any thoughts on this? A-Nottingham | Talk 17:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notable Old Laurentians 

message: I'm very concerned that some things have been removed from the LSS profile without document, proper reasoning or any consultation with others. In particular, a reference to students often being referred to as 'Griffins' has been removed without trace? Any shedding of light on such matters would be very much appreciated.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.152.255.35 (talk) 17:06, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It was removed in this edit at 17:22, 2 January 2012 by IP 87.112.172.145. The edit summary was "removal of untrue statement" thus as the statement was unsourced the removal was correct as there is doubt over its validity. Keith D (talk) 20:58, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dubious editorial curation 

message: At present there is a discussion relating to the renaming of this category. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at this discussion page. Please note that the discussion is not a majority vote so contributions should be based on Wikipedia policies and independent sources. Cjc13 (talk) 13:34, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category:Old Laurentians renaming 

message: "However, the system has been noted as being a waste of money, particularly within the lower school as they already have a uniform by which they can be identified, but these people do not realise this is a requirement put in place by Ofsted"
Is it just me or does this sentence seem to be opinionated and have a tone which is not suitable for Wikipedia, it sounds almost as if a staff member has written it out of frustration or anger, certainly it is not of the high standard I have come to expect from wikipedia.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.122.124.8 (talk) 20:32, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: That statement is indeed not appropriate for Wikipedia, so I have removed it.  Deli nk (talk) 20:46, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Recent Changes" Final Sentence - Biased? 

message: In 2013 25% boys failed to reach the English Baccalaureate. FACT.
The School is under investigation from the LGO relating to an unlawful withdrawal of a school place and refusal to allow an appeal. FACT.
The school was directed by the DfE for failure or should I say refusal of Peter Kent to abide by his own complaints policy. FACT.
Parents have made reports to the police regarding bullying. FACT.
A boy's arm was broken in an assault. FACT.
The police have had to visit the school on numerous occasions. FACT.
Do not hide the truth.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by LawrenceSheriff (talk • contribs) 12:58, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why does the School want to hide the truth? 

message: The Local Government Ombudsman  found Lawrence Sheriff School at fault for refusing to abide by the schools admissions code and consider a school application after unlawfully withdrawing a school place.  http://www.11plus.eu/image/LGO_LSS_14519_Decision.pdf .
The school was directed by the DfE for refusing to abide by the school's own complaints policy.  http://www.11plus.eu/image/CEM11plusDocs/DfE%20Letter%20to%20LSS.pdf 
This was reported with errors in the Coventry Evening Telegraph. http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/council-blunder-led-coventry-dad-6844420   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.27.197.244 (talk) 20:54, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can we include some facts about the school - evidence available. 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Lawrence Sheriff 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  tag to http://www.edubase.gov.uk/establishment/summary.xhtml?urn=125753
*Added archive https://archive.is/20140916191635/http://www.lgo.org.uk/decisions/education/school-admission-appeals/13-004-713/ to http://www.lgo.org.uk/decisions/education/school-admission-appeals/13-004-713/
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) 19:13, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified