Talk:Trinity College, Kandy

Page Redesign

Listing the names of so many Notable Alumni on this page has made it really hard to read and navigate. So I suggest that in accordance with pages of other universities (such as Harvard University and University of Oxford) we create a separate page called "List of Trinity College Kandy People".
Until then I'm moving the Notable Alumni section to the bottom of this page.--snowolfd4 18:47, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Considering that they're almost entirely all redlinks, I'm tempted to remove them from the article entirely. wikipediatrix 20:10, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Considering that most famous people from Sri Lanka don't have articles about them, the host of redlinks are not a surprise (and don't even bother tring to remove them) --snowolfD4^{( talk / @ )} 20:07, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Dear Snowolfd4, you make a fair point about the redlinks not being surprising: It has to be recognised that relatively fewer contributors to the English Wikipedia come from Asia (especially when you consider that Asia accounts for a sizable proportion of the World's population). But, this is bound to get corrected in time and redlinks will hopefully turn blue! Incidentally, may I present some arguments why you don't necessarily have to create a separate page for notable alumni. First, it is by no means standard for universities and schools on Wiki to always have a separate page for alumni (see for eg Winchester College or Dulwich College). Second, precisely because Asian institutions might be less well known by the typical Wikipedian, the list of notable alumni, by virtue of the job titles and ranks involved, provides a relatively 'independent' indication about the influence and status of a school. In this sense, I see the alumni list as more informative than some other sections of the page that might be of most interest to insiders and alumni of the school. Just an opinionSuresh 21:18, 8 September 2006 (UTC) For example, the section on chronology has a fair amount of minutae which will only be of interest to those who went to this school. My humble opinion is that sections/information that are/is more likely to be of interest to the general reader should appear earlier on the page - the average general reader's attention span is likely to be limited, and s/he might leave the page before reading more important sections like 'the College today. Personally, I would order the sections according to what might be of most interest to the general reader. I would personally prefer this ordering: Brief history, College Today, Principals, Notable alumni, Awards, Anthems, Houses, Teachers, More Detailed history/chronology. Suresh 06:51, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Nice to hear from you Suresh. For a while I thought I was the only one seriously concerned about editing this page.
But a few things. One, the schools you've listed don't have alumni lists anywhere as long as the one here. Those with long lists (again for example Harvard University and University of Oxford) have seperate pages. Two how about you take a look at WP:LENGTH and WP:SS. They contain official Wikipedia policy on how long articles should be. And while 36KB for this page may not seem that big, the fact that the page is so long really does make it contradictory to policy. And I quote,

"there are still good stylistic reasons why the main body of an article should not be unreasonably long, including readability issues"

And Wikipedia is an encyclopedia which concentrates on providing the reader as much information as possible, not just to describe "the influence and status of a school".
I do agree on the chronology section though. I'll try to move it to a seperate page History of Trinity College, Kandy when I have the time. The second section too needs a serious rewrite. --snowolfD4^{( talk / @ )} 15:23, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

noncompliant

Tagging this article "noncompliant": rampant WP:OR violations, unsourced claims, personal opinions, unnecessary minutiae, and an image with a suspicious "irrevocably released all rights" tag. wikipediatrix 20:12, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Again, like what I said above, there aren't that many articles on Sri Lankan topics online. And considering the content is not controvosial and no one has disputed any claims, you'll just have take the word of the editors that its true. Even I've added some stuff from magazines which aren't available online and so I can't provide links to them. So how about you quit the deletionist views.

Obviously it isn't the perfect WP article, so I'll try a bit of a clean up when I can. --snowolfD4^{( talk / @ )} 20:18, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

wikipediatrix

True, the first paragraph is completely a personal opinion probably by Snowolfd4.(Which I have removed) But you seem to have a personal problem with the page. I suggest you not touch it. All Pics were uploaded by me. Therefore u should not have a problem with that. If you are naturally "suspicious" about everything, thats entirely your problem. I warn you once again. Pls do not remove anything from the page. If you remove a single word from this article we will treat it as vandalism.

Choven

A few things Choven

• All the stuff I've added are from publications on Trinity. I've added citations of a few of them. I'll add more if/when I remember them. Next time its best if you notify the editor before removing content he/she has added.
• The official college colors are Maroon, Gold and Navy. Didn't you know that?
• There's really no need to threaten wikipediatrix or any other user for that matter. This is Wikipedia and we usually discuss thing in a civilized manner. So lets take it easy. --snowolfD4^{( talk / @ )} 17:53, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Snowolf

If you go thru the edits carefully, you will see that someone had changed the school colours to blood red, and I have reverted it back to maroon.

Even if you have citations for the first para, it still is an opinion. Trinity follows the same curriculum as any other school. Therefore:

“Its educational vision goes beyond the general quest for acquisition of knowledge and development of skills. Its philosophy of education finds expression in a commitment to inculcate and nurture in its students certain positive attitudes and timeless moral and spiritual values which are indispensable towards the development of wholeness of personality and a healthy democratic society. The comprehensive cirricular, co-curricular and extra-curricular programs at Trinity College are designed to sharpen the mind and stimulate academic pursuits, while meeting the physical, psychological and emotional needs of a growing child. The dimension of contextualization of education in a multi-racial and multi-religious society has assumed a new significance in post independent Sri Lanka.”

….is quite plainly, patronising! These are not facts. Clearly you have stated that they are from a school publication. Enough said. I urge you to remove this para.. or We will have to remove it as it does make us the laughing stock.

Wiki is not there to write what you think but mere facts like the school colours, principals and important dates.

I do apologise abt not informing you abt the removal but I was quite embarrassed to read what was said.

I would really appreciate if you could not get involved with my personal dealings with wikipediatrix. She has clearly questioned the legitimacy of the pictures that I uploaded. As far as I am concerned that’s all you and I would discuss regarding the said user!!!

Thank you for you Cooperation and regards.

First of all you did change the colors to Blood Red. [1].

Next lets go thru the intro.

Trinity College Kandy, founded in 1872, has a long history as a premier educational institution in Sri Lanka with a distinctive tradition as an Independent Private School.

Any problems with that. I hope not.

Its educational vision goes beyond the general quest for acquisition of knowledge and development of skills.

Its "vision". You can't argue with the schools vision. It doesn't have to actually work.

Its philosophy of education finds expression in a commitment to inculcate and nurture in its students certain positive attitudes and timeless moral and spiritual values which are indispensable towards the development of wholeness of personality and a healthy democratic society.

Its "philosophy". Again you can't argue with the schools philosophy. It doesn't have to actually work.

The comprehensive cirricular, co-curricular and extra-curricular programs at Trinity College are designed to sharpen the mind and stimulate academic pursuits, while meeting the physical, psychological and emotional needs of a growing child.

And once again, "are designed to". It doesn't have to actually work.

The dimension of contextualization of education in a multi-racial and multi-religious society has assumed a new significance in post independent Sri Lanka.

Is that not true?

Not everything is stated as facts. Its just describing what Trinity hopes to acomplish. Nothing wrong with that.

You also need to read Wikipedia:Why Wikipedia is so great, WP is not for "mere facts like the school colours, principals and important dates." WP is a comprehensive encyclopedia, thats part of "Why Wikipedia is so great".

And I do not want to get involved in your "dealings" with wikipediatrix. I was just saying, take it cool. Discuss things, don't argue. --snowolfD4^{( talk / @ )} 18:18, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Snowolf

I do not know how it happened (changing of the colour). Gunemalli had initially changed it. Try this [2]

To be quite honest, your paragraph has nothing wrong. Infact excellent!. But it would only look good in the college magazine. Not in wiki. There are only 4 words in it which can really be categorised as unbiased; Trinity, college, Kandy and sri Lanka.(apart from if, in, at and a).

If you are so unwavering in your quest in showing off your excellent language skills, fair enough; leave the para. But it adds nothing to the page.if you so wish to add the intentions and the vision of the school You mite as well add the intentions of rank and file in the school. After all I think this vision statement fits any school and hence I could cut & paste your para to every school page with minor adjustments such as the school name.

The school has its own web site to do its advertising. Your paragraph makes the page look like a propaganda web page. Like I mentioned before; the school has its own web site to publish its vision and mission statements.(and trust me thats why they have a web site. Visit www.trinitycollege.lk)

It is clear that you have written the para with your heart and sounds a bit emotional too.

This is not my sole opinion, but of many. I would urge you to reconsider your stance and remove it. Please……………. Please ……please…..before someone like wikipediatrix moves in and tags the page again….

Snowolf

Re: Choven's comment that "this vision statement fits any school and hence I could cut & paste your para to every school page with minor adjustments such as the school name"...., I was struck by the fact that the Hillwood College official website (history page) has several quotes remarkably similar to the ones in the disputed para! Suresh 21:49, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

OK first of all to the anon 62.172.215.187 who blanked the content and I assume is Choven, I'm seriosly dissapointed you decided to delete content without loggin in. That's kind of cowardly isn't it? And if everything needed is contained in the official website, why do we need this article at all?

And Suresh, if the Vision of Hillwood College is the same as Trinity (copied or otherwise), let them include it on their page of Wikipeida, I've got no problem with that.

Also I'm kind of busy these days so I'm not getting into an edit war, but when I have some free time I'll try to revamp this page. --snowolfD4^{( talk / @ )} 15:34, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Suresh

Deleted "antecedents go back to" stuff from the info box. I think its quite Unnecessary. Trinity college was established in 1872 and anything else there is inappropriate in my opinion. It was Kandy colligiate school from 1857 to 1863 (the fore runner to Trinity) and there are no hard facts or proof of Trinity's founding fathers in 1817. The first english missionaries entered Kandy in 1817. Thats all. After all it was in 1815 that Ceylon became a crown colony. Therefore talk of 1817's is rubbish. BTW this is no tit for tat thing. Merely pointing out that there is absolutely no evidence to trace Trinity's inception before 1857.

rgds Choven..

Snowolf

If war is what u mention that is what you will get. If u want to glorify your interests pls create a new page and do what ever you want. Abt your inquiry as to y we need a page like this; The college web site does not include notable alumni, teachers etc, does not clearly indicate the house structure, Does not include a list of Trinity Lions and its a part of a large article called "Education in Sri Lanka". What we have to remember is that many a non-Trinitian will read our page. To them, what you have written is completely and utterly c**p. C'mon, lets try and put up some facts on our page. Don't treat this page as you do the other pages that you have edited. Many Thanks

Dude seriously cool down OK? There's a wikipedia policy somewhere about keeping a cool head. I suggest you find it and read it.

Right first of all SIGN IN before making edits, and use ~~~~ to sign your comments. Otherwise things get really confusing. Because right now I have to assume this is Choven. It is you isn't it?

Next WAR? Come on, seriously.

To be honset I don't really need your opinion on what this page should include. Its already written down in wikipedia policy which agian I suggest you read very carefully. WP is not a directory or list. Its a comprehensive encyclopedia. Look that up.

And really I'm not going to bother replying to your comments. Its really a waste of my time. So please don't waste my time with your nonsense comments. --snowolfD4^{( talk / @ )} 17:59, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Snowolf .The feelings are mutual. To be quite honest, U are a massive pain in the neck. Before you started getting smart on this page, everything was perfectly ok. Look what you have done to it now. We are drawing the attention of all the jobless riff raff like wikipediatrix marking up this page non-compliant etc. Pls stop adding trivial details and your opinion on this page. I urge you to leave it as it is. Calm down. Go down to a pub and have a drink mate. Drop the ego stuff and leave it alone. Do you really think that we need your opinion on what this should look like???? Modesty seems to be your forte.. Keep going.

Regards. Sir Render

Who the hell am I talking to? I thought it was the Choven guy. PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE SIGN USING ~~~~. If you don't know what that is, it's the key just below the "Esc" key. This isn't an email.

And like I said I'm not going to waste my time on whoever you are. --snowolfD4^{( talk / @ )} 02:39, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Page Redesign

Does anyone think that we should remove as many red links as we could from the notable alumni page? I think its gone too far now. What do you think? pls lets discuss. Sir Render

Hi Sir Render/Choven and Snowfold. I welcome Sir Render's invitation to discuss matters. I'd be the first to acknowledge that you have contributed a lot of useful content to this page. I suspect that all those who have contributed content to this page have the same interests and motivations at heart. So, while there might understandably be differences amongst us, I guess they are really differences of emphasis. Perhaps if we all made a concerted effort, we can easily find consensus and work together amicably to make this article better. I propose that we all forget the past differences and 'look to the end'? As to how we respond to Wikipediatrix, I suggest that we try to address the concerns s/he has about lack of referencing. I feel that we can easily respond to this. Give me a day and I will suggest sources for a lot of the information on the page. I don't think her reasons for the latest tag were focused on the red links per se, so deleting them might not necessarily satisfy Wikipediatrix. And, by the way, we could always make many of these redlinks black, just like in the teachers section, if redlinks were the problem. Suresh 16:42, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I think we should leave the red links as they are. It shouldn't be a problem considering, like I've said before, many important Sri Lankans as yet don't have articles on them on WP. I think that will gradually fix itself as more Sri Lankans conribute to WP.

And Suresh, if we remove the links, when someone does create an article on a particular individual, it won't be linked to on this page. That'll be a problem.

Don't worry. A majority of WP editors aren't deletionists, and I'm pretty sure the community won't have a problem with the red links, considering this is a page about a Sri Lankan institution. --snowolfD4^{( talk / @ )} 02:25, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Sources / non compliant tagging

This article already cites relavent sources. The {{sources}} tag is unnecessary. Please do not add it without prior discusion.

Regarding non compliance, I agree the "The College Today" section does need a rewrite, but that doesn't mean the whole article should be tagged. If there are further problems, please list them in detail before adding the tag. No generalizations please. --snowolfD4^{( talk / @ )} 02:32, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Links to individual Batch Websites

Hakimu added a link to the class of '96 website in the External links section. I noticed one editor had previously removed it, and when he added it again I removed it as well. He put it bak with the edit summery

Please do not remove link since it is importnat for people to what other site related to trinity are out there on the web

I personnaly think that we should't keep the link cos for one if we have the 96 link then we'll have to give links to all other individual batch websites. That won't be nice.
Also according to Wikipedia policy WP:NOT WP isn't a collection of external links. And I don't know if the website provides any further important info not listed in this article.
And someone may always add the tag {{cleanup-spam}} which says

I didn't remove the link yet cos I'll like to see what everyone else thinks about this.--snowolfD4^{( talk / @ )} 18:25, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid I agree with ALL of Snowolf's reasons; I don't think it that appropriate to have a link to individual batch websites. In addition, the home page of this particular batch website has rather too many spelling mistakes etc. - this will not reflect that well on what is supposed to be 'the best school of all'! Suresh 19:08, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

justification

Suresh! First, thanks for pointing out that there were some typos in the website, much appreciated. Regarding snowolf's and your opinion, I'm sorry but I still do not agree to it. To my knowledge there are three batch sites available 96,97 and 99 on the web. I will just keep to 96 and point out reasons why I think it is important that the site is listed in external links

Firstly It is a dynamic site and gets updated with news, photos, forums, member details, e-mail group (sadly we cannot make some of them public, but there are some public areas). It is intended for networking mainly 96 trinitians, but others also may contribute. It does something like the trinitians.net, but in a smaller scale and for a more specific ordinance.

The second reason is that this is no *advertisement* for the site. Its non profit, and we do not hope to advertise on it in any case.

Regarding the additional info on this page, could you guys tell me a single site with the summary update of the seasons rugby scores? What more it has pics of which many may not be available on other sites. Hope that is enough additional info.

So I do not wish to jabber anymore about this, since I'm strained for time. As for snowwolfs welcome message (on my talk page), thanks! but I have been a contributor to wiki for along time (even before wiki became so popular), but never saw it as a requirement to register until I needed to create a page that did not exist already. So I'm a veteran over here even thought Hakimu is an amature.

I'll respect this discussion, and wait before I add the links again. “Look to the end” Hakimu 09:15, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Chapel section copyvio issue

The addition was by User:Inshafc, with this diff, 12 August 2011. Can be rewritten in a more encyclopedic tone. Charles Matthews (talk) 06:29, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for spotting that, Charles Matthews! Unfortunately it was not the only copyvio in the article. I agree with, but have not followed, your rewrite suggestion; perhaps the merge I have suggested below would provide an opportunity to do that - based on independent reliable sources, of course. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 14:00, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://web.archive.org/web/20050510012900/http://www.trinitycollege.lk/history_&_heritage/history_&_heritage.html and http://trinitycollege.lk/college-chapel, among others. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and according to fair use may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:53, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Trinity College Chapel, Kandy

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was not to merge. Dan arndt (talk) 02:15, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

---

It's the chapel of the school. Unreferenced and unencyclopaedic content; there's no indication of independent notability (or indeed of any notability at all). Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:45, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

• Disagree - The chapel is a unique piece of architecture and is a notable building in its own right. I will undertake a process of rewriting & referencing the article over the next few weeks to make it more encyclopedic and remove some of the self-promotional phrasing.Dan arndt (talk) 08:53, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Have now rewritten the article. It is notable in its own right - in that it is one of the first christian churches in Sri Lanka that was designed & constructed based on traditional Sinhalese architecture. It is now properly referenced to establish its notability. Dan arndt (talk) 06:30, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://trinitycollege.lk/evolution-of-trinity-college-kandy. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and according to fair use may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:00, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

As a recent major editor to this article I am exteremely interested to see where Justlettersandnumbers believes these copyright violations exist. I have undertaken a check with the duplication dector and fail to see where these alleged copyright violations exist. It would appear that Justlettersandnumbers hasn't really done his homework before removing significant portions of this article. As a result I reverted his edits until such time as he can justify them with actual facts. Dan arndt (talk) 12:53, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Dan arndt, as you can see from this DupDet report the content you restored to the page included considerable copying from the website of the school. Please take care not to add copyright violations to Wikipedia again. You then appear to have done much the same "homework" that I did, since you removed most of it, leaving the edit summaries "removed copyright violations" and "removed all traces of copyright violations". I assume that you did not remove copyright violations that you couldn't see? The rest of the section appears to be close paraphrasing from the same source. It is also without references to independent reliable sources. Can you suggest any possible reason why it should not be removed, along with the rest of the unreferenced and unencyclopaedic material you have added back into the page? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:28, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

So let me get this straight Justlettersandnumbers, you have based your comments on the fact that previously the history of the school was a direct copy from the website of the school and that some recent changes to the later history undertaken by other editors (about four sentences in total) was also a direct copy and therefore you assume that the whole history is again a copyright violation. On top of that you also decide to delete the table of school principals and information on the school houses. I think you need to closely re-examine the way that you assess potential copyright violations, as it smacks of an editor who doesn't pay much attention to the content and makes incorrect and generalised assumptions without really checking. I agree that I need to cite additional references for the history of the school and intend to do so but I take umbrage to the fact that you state it is not encyclopaedic - I have taken great efforts to ensure the information is factual and objective in tone. I have purposely avoided looking at the school's website when preparing the information contained within the article to ensure that editors did not think it was taken from that source - what I was unable to avoid was lazy editors making unsubstantiated assumptions. Once again I ask you to justify your comments with some actual facts. Dan arndt (talk) 23:39, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Disruptive editing

Recent edits by User talk:212.183.140.29 have continually attempted to add non-relevant (and potentially copyright) material to the article. Whilst I have left a message on the user's talk page as they are an anonymous editor I am also providing my comments on the article's talk page in an attempt to avert an edit war. I am happy to discuss my rationale for why have reverted their changes here rather than continually commenting on their edits. Dan arndt (talk) 10:35, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Dan dictator style about my college is unacceptable. To deny information to the reader about the founder or the main benefactor is

unacceptable. I have answered all his questions and reasons which he poses and selectively applies. For instance the information about Rev wickramasinghe and capt de alwis is also from the same official source — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.183.140.29 (talk) 11:51, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I am not being dictatorial but the information you are trying it include needs to add to the value of the article. It also needs to not be a direct copy of another source. It also need to be verified by an independent reference, which is not the school's website. There is also a concern that you might be to close to the subject and be slightly biased in your opinion of what information is relevant to the article.Dan arndt (talk) 12:20, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

User talk:81.149.60.254 please refrain from adding information that is uncited and unable to be verified by independent references. Such behaviour is disruptive and unhelpful. Dan arndt (talk) 16:35, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

LET ME EXPLAIN:

By glancing at the 'View History' page it is easy to see that you delete other people's contributions. WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A DICTATORSHIP OF INFORMATION.

In addition 'A ONE MAN SHOW' contribution such as yours has problems and bias.

For instance;

1. Over half the page is dedicated to the past principals, whilst only a quarter of the page for all else (the remaining quarter is occupied by references).

I do not have to remind you that this page is about TRINITY COLLEGE, KANDY and not 'Principals of Trinity college’. A 'college history' is not merely about past principals.

You and any other editor(s) are welcome to add more details to the college history. At such an early stage it has been easier to source independent verifable sources for the past principals. If you read the preceeding comments in the past much of the history of the college has been directly copied from the school's website in violation of wikipedia's copyright rules and as such has been repeatdely deleted.

2. In addition you perhaps give excessively detailed information about the past principals (I am not opposed to it) on this page (whilst denying all others), when that information is available through the Wikipedia pages dedicated to each of them. (Some have over six lines, giving their past and what they did after leaving Trinity)

Again any editor is welcome to add information to this article but given the past history of copyright violations, that information should be referenced from independent verifable sources not the school website.

3. You repeat information about past principals in that in addition to the many paragraphs solely about them in the ‘History’ section, there is a table with similar information in a section titled ‘Past Principals’.

The table is simply a summary of the past principals, in the history I have attempted to ensure that their involvement with the school is expanded (which can't be included in a simple table).

4. You also use archived articles which according to Wikipedia policy is generally not acceptable.

The use of archived articles is acceptable provided they are properly referenced.

5. The concept of ‘REFERENCED MATERIAL’ also applies to you and before my input to this page (when I brought up that matter after you started to stamp out my input using the above concept) there was a lot of information about the college’s principals which were without any sources. That is inconsistent and biased; 'SELECTIVE APPLICATION'.

I agree all information needs to be properly referenced and as you can imagine this is a long and complicated task. If there is any information that you believe is not referenced and should be deleted than you should do so.

6. Earlier, before my input you had the ‘History’ section only up to Rev. Fraizer, with no information on the past 70 plus years.

As indicated previously providing a properly referenced detailed history of the school is a long and complicated task. At this stage I have been the only editor who has taken on the task, without directly copying the information from the school's website. I also have a 'real life' and other interests on wikipedia. The history of Trinity College is not my sole responsibility and if other editors wish to add properly referenced material for the last 70 years then I would welcome them to do.

7. Much of the data about the schools principals are not available from the cited sources. They have been taken from the college website or the college book. Such information is not available from other sources. Also, many of the 'independent verifiable' sources are written by former students (via books and newspapers).

I have made considerable efforts to avoid even looking at the school's website in order to ensure that there is no question that the information has come from independent sources to the college. If you use WP:SOURCE then you will find it is acceptable to use sources written by former students, if the are from 'published' sources and are cited accordingly.

8. As an engineer is qualified to inform on the projects of his experience, former students are equipped to inform about their school. Wikipedia has not barred their contribution, as that is not constructive and impossible to categorize. so please refrain from giving that impression.

Your comment raises the issue of WP:SOURCE in that the source material should be at least published and self-published sources such as personal web pages and blogs shouldn't be used. It also needs to avoid WP:NOR, in that it needs to be independently verified - which is why it is questionable to rely solely on the school's website.

On the other hand your attachment to this page as shown above makes you unable to be unbiased or reasonable.

As I am not a former student of the College then I feel that makes me less biased than a former student would be. Personally I avoid editing any article with which I have a personal connection to as otherwise it would be a WP:COI.

9. Your energetic and underhand methods (via introduction of a new reference) to delete my input makes your intentions questionable.

My intentions have always been to ensure that the article stands up to a high degree of scrutinty and complies with the requirements of WP. When commenting on what at the time was uncited material I located further information which I included and referenced to avoid being involved in a straight out edit war.

10. When a past pupil also becomes its greatest benefactor contributing towards the progress of the school in such a scale, it is an important part of the school’s history. A person who is professional will not go beyond attaching ‘[citation need]’.

In hindsight I accept that I should have placed a 'citation needed' tag and that potentially may have resolved the issue, without it evolving into an edit war, for which I apolgise.

11. This is not your personal page. Who are you to decide what should be in the page, on what is disruptive editing and who should contribute?

You are correct it is not my personal page but I have never alluded to it being 'my page'. It is everyone's page.

I have tolerated all the above which was in many ways abusive and it is about time you allow others to contribute. I have now found independently verifiable sources (as official sources have to take a secondary place) not just for my past contribution, but also for some of our great past principals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.181.94.171 (talk) 20:16, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I have never been abusive - I have just disagreed with the addition of unsourced unreferenced material which was highly subjective and bordered on WP:COI. I am glad that you have included independently verifiable sources for your contribution and hopefully any further information you or other editors add will also be properly sourced and not just reliant on the college's own website. Dan arndt (talk) 03:33, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

• Image, Trinity College Kandy.jpg
• Rev.R.Collins-225x300.jpg
• Reverend Lewis John Gaster.jpg
• Trinity-college-kandy installation-service-of-principal-rev-fr-araliya-jayasundara-osb-1024x683.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:53, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Alison House.jpg
• Mr. Andrew Fowler Watt.jpg
• Mr. G. K. Ariyaratne.jpg
• Trinity-college-kandy-boarding-houses-Ryde.jpg
• Trinity-college-kandy-boarding-houses-of-trinity-7.jpg

You can see the reasons for deletion at the file description pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:37, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Lt.-Col.-L.-M.-De-Alwis.jpg
• Mr.-C.-J.-Oorloff.jpg
• Mr.-Lionel-Fernando.jpg
• Mr.-Roderick-Gilbert.jpg
• Rev.-Dr.-W.-G.-Wickremasinghe.jpg
• TCK-Crest Hi-Res 07.12.2021 WhiteBackground.jpg

You can see the reasons for deletion at the file description pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:10, 7 June 2022 (UTC)