User talk:Hurlstoned

Welcome!

Hello, Hurlstoned, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Twenty Years 14:15, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hurlstone Agricultural High School

I have reverted your edits to the article. Although they do not appear to be vandalism, they are unconstructive. They contain controversial information that is not backed up by any inderpendant reliable sources, once sources are stated for the information, then it can be re-instated, until then, it will remain out of the article. You may also wish to read WP:BLP. Thanks.Twenty Years 14:15, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Twenty Years, did not realise that the references weren't there, theyre back now. Problem is with controversial information is that the people involved in the controversy usually try to cover up what they've done, as was the case when I attended this school. I don't believe allowing the history of a school to be easily found on Wikipedia is unconstructive as that is what a free encyclopedia is sort of about. Removing the fact that a student and friend of mine died under teacher supervision or that the present principal is not of the same moral standards as previous principals only puts a nice hazy mist over the truth. When this page was started by a friend of mine years ago, all information in the "media attention" section was referenced back to the relevant sources. Someone down the line has vandalised this page, around the same time the fresh controversies began to orbit around the -at one point suspended- present principal. Now to simply place his name next to the names of the previous principals, who in all undoubtedly were included in there own controversies, is wrong. In this day and age when all the negative articles and press are available on the net, i see no reason why they should not b included on a site like this to make it easier for the observer to see all the facts and make thir own call on the situation, I do see the point bout my references though they were all there at one point and i will endeavor to keep them up and active. --Hurlstoned (talk) 01:35, 12 December 2007 (UTC)--Hurlstoned (talk) 01:35, 12 December 2007 (UTC) Hurlstoned, 12:35, 12 December 2007[reply]

I temporarily reverted your edits to make the text more neutral, to remove weasel words, and to remove verbatim sentences from the references cited (see Wikipedia:Copyright violations). I've tweak the words and re-added the stuff. utcursch | talk 05:50, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]