Talk:St Thomas More Catholic School, Bedford

'Notable Alumni'

A couple of editors it seems have been including an unsourced name in a 'notable alumni' section to this article. Despite my attempts to establish notability I cannot find ANY sources on google who even mention who this person is. In order that we can establish notability we must provide a source? Could any of these editors provide a source? Otherwise I shall ask for a wikipedia 3rd opinion on this? Bleaney (talk) 18:06, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Guidelines for alumni are here - Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools/Article guidelines#Who should be included?. Listed alumni must ne notable in wikipedia terms. The onus is on the person adding to demonstrate notability. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:03, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Tagishsimon, I hope this clears the matter up. Bleaney (talk) 21:23, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Should the 'wikipedia third opinion' not be somehow independent and/or impartial - it appears that you are familiar with Tagishsimon, tarnishing their capacity to adjudicate. Acting in this way makes Wikipedia look like somewhat of a ‘boys club’, whereby certain editors, due to personal relationships and agreement’s, gang up on others to enforce their particular version of Wikipedia:

I've put St Thomas More Catholic Upper School in my watchlist; I'll revert should I get the opportunity, but you seem to be taking the honours right now. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:41, 7 February 2010 (UTC) get somebody else involved so you don't inadvertently find yourself in an edit war. If the contributor continues editing in defiance of consensus, then you're dealing with disruption, and it should be handled accordingly Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:52, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

To gang up on and bully into submission a fellow wikipedian is hardly an honourable exercise, in fact I would go so far as to say that such acts are shameful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.234.252.67 (talk) 12:20, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

May I suggest that the editors, Tagishsimon, Moonriddengirl and Bleaney refer to the examples given from Cambridge University, which appear to still contain alumni without ‘adequate references’, or am I misunderstanding how it is that the 'number of people' watching this 'page in question' are demonstrating their 'respect for wikipedia guidelines'. Again, to suggest that this is a vague attempt to somehow 'winning [sic] your point merely by repeatedly adding the information' is to suggest some ulterior underhand motive, rather than merely adding information to the page in much the same way that the three editors have done elsewhere. It would appear that it is Bleaney who has taken it upon themselves to instigate an ‘edit war’, I would argue intentionally, now portraying others as the aggressors – perhaps a disruption is being forced by other hands?

To suggest that the ‘net’ or Google is a definitive and final source of information is short sighted and to the detriment of your beloved suppository of knowledge and information – how do you suggest I cite and adequately reference local history? History stored in Bedford library.

It would be easier if you would tell us why this person you are trying to add is notable, than to engage in barratry. Pointing us to examples in other pages where people have not followed wikipedia guidance is not a very effective argument. History in libraries is mainly held in books. Tell us which book. Inded, tell us anything about the person. That would help. sheesh. --12:24, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on St Thomas More Catholic School, Bedford. 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://archive.is/20121224043324/http://www.st-thomasmore.org.uk/page/?title=Academy+Consultation&pid=58 to http://www.st-thomasmore.org.uk/page/?title=Academy+Consultation&pid=58

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) 07:36, 22 September 2017 (UTC)