User talk:Username nought

Thoughts
Yea its quite good, but im not sure about the last sentence, where it states that the headmaster refused to comment. I think that has some issues: does it mean s/he refused to comment to the advertiser, of they refused to comment on the situation? It is a bit crazy. Possibly just removing that last comment would solve the problem all together. Twenty Years 15:17, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I think its pretty perfect as you have it stated, because it notes that they are only claims and nothing more. it seems pretty NPOV to me - in that it provides both sides of the story and reinforces that it is only claims. Twenty Years 03:55, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * As long as it's referenced (i.e. which edition of the Advertiser, so people can go and read it themselves), there should be no problems. Orderinchaos 09:49, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Just discuss each individual part that each person disagrees with. Twenty Years 12:34, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I have replied to your comments on my talk page. I must warn you that bringing up issues over and over may be viewed negatively by other editors and could get you blocked from editing. Twenty Years 09:49, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * (reduce indent) it could be because you havent looked for anything positive about the school. Some people have said that you are a single purpose account, im not making any judgement, but your comment on my talk page suggests just what they are saying. You may wish to consider your reasons for being here. Twenty Years 12:31, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure, it is a notable event, but adding the other sentence has been knocked back by 3 or 4 editors, and adding the sentence has been supported by no-one, br yourself, i think that must say something. My opinion: just drop it, if you want to keep editing here. Why not start researching some of those other things that made the newspaper, they would probably be notable. Twenty Years 01:34, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry I couldn't be on "your" side, but thanks for asking nonetheless. Michael talk 05:41, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Basically
This wont go to RfC. Basically, with 3 reliable sources, the murder is clearly notable, and is relevant to the college. Any decent admin would agree with that. Ive been very generous with them, offering the large olive branch that i did, i agreed to cut down the paragraph, and well accepting that is their best option. I think your stance is perfectly fine. Twenty Years 15:01, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Apologies
I misjudged the situation on St Marks. Please find my comments on the talk page regarding the issue. To clarify, for some strange reason i didnt check the edit history and thought you had made the first edit to the section. Apologies for the stuff up. Twenty Years 15:03, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

St Marks
Ive re-written the information on the murder situation for the St Marks article, here is my proposed revision:
 * In 1991, Alister Thompson strangled fellow student Allison Nitschke, in her bedroom at the college, her body was found in the Adelaide Hills and Thompson was sentenced to 18 years prison.

Ive tried to improve the prose, and basically make it as short and comprehensive as possible. Would you agree to posting this into the article? (please reply to my talk, i have emailed all involved in the discussion). Twenty Years 15:19, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * A big thank you for the way in which you have dealt with the issues on the St Marks page. Twenty Years 08:48, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment
You may be interested to know that the issue with St Marks has been taken to RfC by Yeti Hunter(here). I removed a comment of mine i made in an earlier section of the talk page that they had posted into the RfC discussion, he has copied one of your comments, and you may or may not wish to remove it. I would encourage you to make a full statement on the RfC. Twenty Years 07:07, 12 November 2007 (UTC)