NOTE: IF YOU ARE ANONYMOUS, AND POST ANYTHING ON THIS PAGE, YOU WILL BE DELETED WITHOUT CONSIDERATION.

I am simply writing this to hear your opinion. Which you are fully able to have.

You recently deleted some pages that I made because they were "useless", I assume. I disagree. While the Wikipedia is indeed an encyclopedia, it is not the same as a print version. Our data is kept very very cheaply. Why not have some extra tidbit of true information.

I recently made a page about a friend of mine, who semi-notibly was the first person to be out/proud at Furman University. While this isn't useful to everyone, or something that you would find in some other encyclopedia, it might indeed be useful to someone looking up info about Furman University or my friend.

My question is, that if the data isn't seen, but is just hidden and kept and could be useful to someone. Then isn't nothing but positive?

I would see the wikipedia as a database of all edited facts and informational pieces. Perhaps I'm just too much of a Neal Stephenson fan, but I think a central database of high quality information, regardless of how important it seems to you, is a good idea.

Ok! I'd love to hear a response on my talk page.

--Hcatlin 15:26, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Rick, there was no need to jump all over me with Three Days of the Condor. I realize it's been hectic today, but I had just started on it. -- Decumanus 08:19, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)

You were just very quick, Rick, removing an entire paragraph three minutes after I had uploaded it. I realize you are a very diligent editor, and I very much appreciate that. It would have been just as easy to drop me a note in my user space. -- Decumanus 20:33, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Hi, just wanted to let you know that after adding the link in-text several times, the anon who was editing John Kerry put in the external links section under the heading "Unofficial". I felt this was valid and thus left it in. Thanks, Meelar 21:33, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I've already done it. Cheers, Meelar 21:43, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that. I didn't mean to delete the map. - Texture 01:46, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Hello, just to thank you for fixing my U.G. Krishnamurti article. It was a nice surprise as it was my first article:)

Re: AAWIL: Well, I thought about 50% of it was usable... I NPOVed it as best I could. Still a bit poor, but not (IMHO) deletable. Evercat 02:09, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Was this an answer to me ( Paodedeus )?If so, why only 50% is usable? Is it gramatics? Or the content itself. I don't intend to leave like it is now, but improve and add the life history of the man. Cheers.02:25,15/02/04 (UTC)

Thanks for the warning. I'm just going to ignore him and hope he gets bored of trolling soon. It's very childish. I expect he is the same person as User:141. Also, thanks for expresing your concern to the mailing list about the aplank issues yesterday. Angela. 20:44, Feb 16, 2004 (UTC)