Is there any reason to preserve this page? While I don't particularly approve of the method of expression of intent, I also don't see much point in keeping it, unless there's more to this individual than is written here. --GreenReaper(talk) 03:44, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
The short-and-sweet summary of this anti-furry sounds fine to me. I think would be a public service to keep the page going.
Hmm, writing down on a Wikifur entry that you are presently "incognito" is the same as holding up a torn tree branch that barely covers your body, and announcing "You can't see me!." If you wish not to be listed here, please ask to have your entry "protected." Spirou 21:49, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Useful article to have?
Fairly extensive changes were made today by 18.104.22.168, the previous contributions of which ISP are obvious vandalism. That aside, I'm not sure why we need an article on this personage; I wouldn't consider simply being "anti-furry" of sufficient relevance. -- Sine 01:49, 26 April 2006 (UTC)