Talk:London South Collegiate Institute

There needs to be a picture of the school.. 76.69.49.82 (talk) 23:22, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

There's a new principle as of 2008; I can't remember his name right now though 74.15.76.71 (talk) 22:20, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

You might want to move to a similar table design as the one under London Central Secondary School's, its cleaner and perhaps more applicable, given the US nature of many of the points. Just a suggestion!

With the new Robert Aziz link, should we put links to Kate Nelligan's site or Dan Brodbeck's site (BTW, this is Dave Brodbeck, Dan's Brother, not dan). It seems a bit much to me. If there is no compelling counter arguemtn, I will remove the Aziz link.Dbrodbeck 01:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

"Link to terrorist actives" section

I have deleted this a couple of times, per WP:BRD I would really like to discuss this here. My take is that it is irrelevant where these guys went to school, and, this is not a news site. A school with almost a hundred years of history, to list these two guys who happen to have gone to this school seems, frankly, trivial. Other thoughts? Dbrodbeck (talk) 22:41, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

I have to agree that "link to terrorist activities" is an inappropriate section in my opinion. The school itself has no known link, it was alumni or former students? "Notable" alumni may not be the best section in a school article for this type of information, but that seems to be how it is done on WP.similar example I also think that Dbrodbeck has a COI, conflict of interest and that even though he is correct that a "link to terrorist activities" section is a inappropriate way to put the information about the former pupils, I do not think that Dbrodbeck should be involved with keeping the information out of the article altogether.24.0.133.234 (talk) 02:09, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

I have no conflict of interest, I went to South yes, but, I have no other connection with the school, and I graduated almost 30 years ago. Show me one COI edit that I have made. Dbrodbeck (talk) 03:56, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

I am only referring to this matter in particular. I think that your edit to delete or change the section title is correct but for you to insist or change whether or not the past students' names are included in the article is a conflict for alumni. If that is also your name on the list of notable alumni- and another person with the same name...it would give the impression of ownership of the page due to a coi. Personally I am not going to fool with the article but I really don't think that you should be censoring information which could be considered to be negative in this article unless it is false or something that is usually not allowed. 24.0.133.234 (talk) 01:21, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I have been quite careful with this. I don't see any edits in the past, and I don't foresee any in the future, where I broke policy. Dbrodbeck (talk) 14:43, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Again, in reply to you asking to be shown where you are incorrect here, you CENSORED information out of an article in which you have a conflict of interest. The section of the article where you DELETED/CENSORED....also mentions YOU and YOUR RELATIVE. If that is not a COI,(censoring an article in which you have a personal interest) I really don't know what is.24.0.133.234 (talk) 00:13, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Fine then, take me to ANI. Dbrodbeck (talk) 00:22, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

The mentions of the suspects must not be included, as the sourcing does not indicate that the school is in any way important regarding their alleged actions. Zad68 17:03, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

The last time that I checked, you and your relative were both listed in the "Notable alumni" section. You have deleted and blanked a section about those other alumni, and also refused that their names be included in the "Notable alumni" section. That is the COI, not what they did or didn't do. I have already agreed that "link to terrorist activities" section should be blanked on an article about the school. If you can't understand me I may just take it to ANI because it is pretty simple and I don't know how else to explain it.24.0.133.234 (talk) 14:47, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

OK I posted it on ANI-please excuse any technical mistakes. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding Question about COI. The thread is Editor asked for comments I answered but they still don't understand simple COI.The discussion is about the topic Topic24.0.133.234 (talk) 15:43, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Dbrobeck has a COI. His COI regards his inclusion in the article, and content related to him. It isn't relevant otherwise, and unless his edits can be shown to be problematic on their own, it isn't helpful to bring it up (much less repeatedly). We do not commonly include information about people who are not notable in lists such as this. Generally speaking, that means we don't include names of people without dedicated articles on-wiki. Neither of these people have dedicated articles, so it's probably not appropriate to include them. If they can be shown to be independently notable, then I would support their inclusion. Running to ANI probably wasn't the best option; there's lots of other ways to resolve a dispute.   — Jess· Δ♥ 15:46, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank-you!I thought I was taking crazy-pills here. As I said before I am not interested in editing the article, but Dbrobeck asked for comments so I attempted to point-out the problem. It was not my idea to post it on ANI (Dbrobeck's suggestion), and I didn't realize how quickly they close items there, so I could not respond to the incorrect statements posted as replies. The COI noticeboard would be my choice of venues to take the problem, but I was trying to be fair to Dbrobeck so I went with that suggestion. Since the ANI was closed with the statement that it was not the correct place for it, I think that the COI noticeboard is the best place to take it.24.0.133.234 (talk) 17:39, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I HAVE NO COI with respect to the idiots that joined AQ, re read what Jess said, and frankly the ANI thing. Honestly. Dbrodbeck (talk) 19:35, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

24.0.133.234 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) if you start a COI investigation please be sure to notify me, as I would like to comment. Outside of any COI investigation you might start regarding that, I expect that you will drop discussion of the subject, especially here on this article's Talk page. Thanks. Zad68 19:42, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Alumni

I found a reference and added it about where my younger brother went to high school. I wonder is this good enough for Ray Getliffe? [1] or [2]? Dbrodbeck (talk) 16:26, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on London South Collegiate Institute. 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/20110519072723/http://www.tvdsb.on.ca/schools/Secondary_October2007.pdf to http://www.tvdsb.on.ca/schools/Secondary_October2007.pdf

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 13:16, 25 May 2017 (UTC)