Talk:Assumption Catholic Secondary School

Improper References

I've gone through the article and attempted to either delete or 'comment out' poorly referenced sections and items. In other places I have added references to the school and board website where applicable. I have removed the improper referencing flags from the page. I've never had to edit a flag before so let me know if it should be put back. Haida16 (talk) 23:42, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

Aside from the extensive vandalism, I don't think there's a need for the teacher listing as put on the page right now. I've gone ahead and removed it, but it's in the history for posterity's sake if anyone feels like putting it back in.

Thoughts? Codernaut (talk) 04:11, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify after reading some other discussions on the teacher listing: Even though it may be publicly available information, it's not really encyclopedic as it will always be changing. Codernaut (talk) 18:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Codernaut. A few days ago i deleted the list, but then i was banned indefinately for doing so. Eventually my ban was lifted, so here i am now, but i want to clarify that the changes i have made are still there, as they improve the quality of the page. Randomperson101 (talk) 14:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I saw the discussion on that, just this way it's like you said, to clarify. Codernaut (talk) 18:32, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lunch System

So I just saw the section on the lunch system, and it's clearly not going by WP:NPOV. I've commented it out for now. I don't think it's very important to the rest of the article, but if someone else wants to take a crack at it, go ahead. Codernaut (talk) 00:28, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That section adhered to Wikipedia's code and guidleines. I can't belive that you deleted it. I put it there to inform people of what is goin on, which it was doing until it got deleted. It deserves to stay, because it is not vandalism, or any other kind of bad judgement etc. I will place it back up if i have to, so please don't delete it again, as it INFORMS, and doesnt INTERFERE with Wikipedia in any way whatsoever. Randomperson101 (talk) 15:06, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The text is still commented out (it wasn't put back in properly). What I meant to say with my previous comment is that the section on the Lunch System is worded in a way that is not neutral. As much as it may seem that no one likes the changes being made, Wikipedia must present facts that are not biased toward any particular opinion. Now even if it was re-written and included in the article, I don't think it's of enough notability for permanent inclusion.

Cliff's notes: It must be neutral if it's going in, but I don't think it's kind of thing people will look at five years from now. Even if it informs, we're not a newspaper. People have the Burlington Post for that. Write a letter to the editor? Codernaut (talk) 23:08, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Assumption Catholic Secondary 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 archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120316161312/http://www.reachforthetop.com/newsNat.cfm to http://www.reachforthetop.com/newsNat.cfm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 06:14, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]