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)

See Mav's comment at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/168 168...|...Talk 23:34, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Why the block on User:Ric? Evercat 00:34, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Nevermind, hadn't seen the page User:Ric... Evercat 00:35, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Hey I wanted to bring this up with you since you're an admin with some experience with and interest in the Hector issue and probably know of 172. The article Mass murder was the subject of a fairly light edit war between Hector and me, as Hector kept adding that killing of the US's indigenous population was "mass murder by the state". I considered this trolling, and it's by my lights not just inaccurate but ridiculous (calling hundreds of individual skirmishes, each with its own history and blame to go around, an act of "mass murder" is absurd, and not clearly a state action anyway). It seemed a no-brainer, but then 172 came in, protected the page, claiming he was "stopping [the] edit war", and then reverted it to Hector's version (which even includes a broken link typo, as I told him!). This seems a borderline policy violation. It is true that technically 172 was not (until now) involved in this edit war, but he is deeply involved in the me/him/Hector triad and me/him/others conflicts on other pages, so, besides his actions here, his neutrality is questioned by me. Me talking to him has not been productive (on many other pages, too), no doubt in light of the fact that I do not have the power to unprotect or alter the page. Sorry to try to drag you into this, but I feel admin intervention is needed and you seem the logical choice. I did, incidentally, let this sit for a few days to try to "ride it out" before contacting anyone. -- VV 07:15, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Sigh. I went for the version posted before the recent changes list was dominated by HectorRodriguez's reversion of VeryVerily's additions to mass murder, VeryVerily's reversions of HectorRodriguez's reversions, HectorRodriguez's reversions of VeryVerily's reversions of HectorRodriguez's reversion, VeryVerily's reversions of HectorRodriguez's reversions of VeryVerily's reversions of HectorRodriguez's reversion, my reversion of VeryVerily's reversion of HectorRodriguez's reversion of VeryVerily's reverson of HectorRodriguez's reversions of mass murder. I could care less about the content dispute. I was trying to push them in the direction of discussing issues of substance, rather than engage in an ideological proxy war played out through edit wars over myriad articles. If this isn't recourse for a sysop's intervention, then we might as well stop allowing admins to protect pages; if anything, this is a textbook example of proper use of sysop powers that could come from a policy page.

Incidentally, despite the innuendo above, I could've cared less about which version was protected. In fact, seeing that Hector hasn't been around lately, I'll unprotect the page. Afterwards, I'll revert back to VV's version, since the US doesn't belong in this list. However, I was not of liberty to say that when intervening in an edit war.

Every page protection is going to offend at least one party. However, at least I offended both: the word "terrorist" was kept in to Hector's consternation, while the U.S. was kept in to VV's consternation. I merely asked the two users to start discussing substantive content matters, and made no statement favoring either party. VV's decision to attack my motivations, rather than take responsibility (as a good conservative would do) was regrettable. 172 07:57, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Hi Rick, assuming Wik accepts the call for mediation you made at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation, please could you express any preferences you have regarding who should mediate this dispute. The members of Wikipedia:Mediation Committee are the recommended choice, but you may ask anyone if you like. Please state whether there are any mediators that are acceptable to you, or any that you would refuse to accept. You may also e-mail me or any of the other mediators if you do not want your concerns publically posted and this communication will kept as private as you like. Our e-mail addresses are listed at Wikipedia:Mediation committee. Thank you. Angela. 12:30, Feb 18, 2004 (UTC)

Ignore the above. Wik has refused mediation. Angela. 00:02, Feb 19, 2004 (UTC)

Why shouldn't I remove talk page information? Anthony DiPierro 02:41, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)