Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia is not toilet paper

Essays Low‑impact

	This page is within the scope of WikiProject Wikipedia essays, a collaborative effort to organise and monitor the impact of Wikipedia essays. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion. For a listing of essays see the essay directory.EssaysWikipedia:WikiProject EssaysTemplate:WikiProject EssaysWikiProject Wikipedia essays pages
Low	This page has been rated as Low-impact on the project's impact scale.
	The above rating was automatically assessed using data on pageviews, watchers, and incoming links.

Hey, I like your style and you do good screed... but one thing, I wrote WP:HEY and I've been called the poster child for deletionism on many an occasion... it's to make sure that if something gets AfDd and people start saying "this can be a good article" it gives them something to aim for. otherwise stuff gets kept on condition it will be improved but with no incentive to improve it. I don't really monitor how much it gets used but I'd be surprised if it was thought of as an inclusionist measure... improvalist maybe... I'm going back to the ball of fire thing now. Deizio talk 23:42, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've always believed that you should get all the screed out first, and then slowly edit the article to an NPOV, calm, rational, logical standard. I have to admit, the first time I saw WP:HEY and saw the change in the article I was like "holy fuck!" I consider myself a deletionist but not to the point that I'm going to start witch hunting people. I just don't like crap on the Wikipedia. If it's a biography that can be sourced, source it. If not, delete it. I mostly dislike random pseudoscience and bandcruft. But you're right , WP:HEY should be used as a goal, not a stick to draw a line with as "do this good or it gets deleted". Thanks for responding! --Elaragirl ||||||^Talk|Count 00:25, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah...[edit]

I recently saved the crab soccer article by adding some references. The AfD debate (here) had several users who said that it should be deleted originally, but once the references were added, more and more people saw it as a worthy subject for an article and some changed their vote. The problem was that before the AfD debate the article was a horrible, amateurish completely unreferenced stub without even any external links.

I'm digressing here slightly, but I honestly don't see why IP editing is allowed. Wikipedia may be "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit", but it doesn't cost anything to sign up for an account. Hell, you don't even need to provide an email address. I think it's lunacy, the amount of childish/experimental vandalism that could be prevented by requiring a simple login which many childish vandals wouldn't even be bothered to do, so they wouldn't do it at all.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 10:26, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]