Wikipedia essays Low‑impact

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Wikipedia essays, a collaborative effort to organize 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.Wikipedia essaysWikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia essaysTemplate:WikiProject Wikipedia essaysWikiProject Wikipedia essays 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.

This is fucking horrible, why ruin something with so much potential? I hate this page, it contains no valid inforation, and is a joke. Yes it belongs in Uncyclopedia.

Its worthless, and a waste of time.

Your opinion is what's actually worthless. The proof is simple: you failed to sign your edit. David Spector 00:59, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Any objections to adding Truthiness to the See Also: section? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 12:37, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So glad I'm not the only one who sees Stephen's hand in this page... since nobody seems to object, I'll add it. Rissa (talk) 19:55, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Before reading this talkpage, I added it to the lead. Spooky. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I dispute the factual accuracy of this page. However, I don't want to vandalize it, because that would be against the rules and violate consensus.

Instead, as a suggestion on how we could build consensus around this issue, I created a workshop at WP:The truth sandbox. Thank you. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 22:05, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

5 stars! I could've sworn that I was reading one Uncyclopedia's rare well-written articles. Esn (talk) 06:28, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Amen. David Spector 00:59, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]