User:69.145.123.171/registering

 Why I haven't registered:   Two reasons:
 * For starters, It's not my choice. This one is a bit hard to explain, but you have to trust me when I say it would be very hard to do.
 * There seems to be some bias amoungst editors as to whether or not anons should be able to edit. It surprises me that this should even be up to question. How many of you would be here today if you weren't able to edit when you were nothing but an IP? Not many. As you can see by my rant, I feel very strongly about this. We call it Wikipedia, not almost-Wikipedia. The anons are what make this encyclopedia what it is today. Without us, there would be no Wikipedia users. The reason you don't see that many helpful anons is because they've all registered, sans this guy. In order to prove how needed the anons are, I have decided to stay one. Believe me, if there was no debate on the subject I would constantly be trying to get past what prevents me from registering. But I'm not going to do. There are still those who think anons should be forced to register. I realize what this means-I cannot have a monobook. I cannot be an admin. My IP may change again, and I'll have to start all over. I cannot vote in RFAs. I cannot create pages. I cannot move pages. I will be discriminated against. I will be mistaken for a vandal when I am bold. I will be ignored by users who do not like anons.

Somebody has to do it.

If you still believe the anons are Wikipedia's heart and soul, add yourself to the list: 


 * Anons are wikipedians too. GeorgeMoney (talk) (Help Me Improve!) 21:26, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Not only are anons the heart and soul of this place, they are a major part of the brain.  Matt B. "aka"  Thetruthbelow  04:28, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * At some point, certain anons get such good reputations that they begin being counted in AfDs and the like. It's just harder to remember their names. Anti-anon editors need to be sent to the LARTing department. Tito xd (?!?) 08:37, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * They are the heart, soul, brain per Thetruthbelow, and possibly the left ear... But seriously without anon IPs Wikipedia would suck. Will  Mak  050389
 * The only problem is with remembering the names. RC patrol shows that most anon edits are good-faith (although some are newbie mistakes). Editors can't do everything admins can do, but they can achieve the same effect using admin-help request tags and pages, and it's the same with anons (that's why pages like WP:AFC exist). --ais523 08:09, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Not all anons are bad.FellowWikip e dian 02:18, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * There is actually some good anon users such as yourself. Thief Lord 19:38, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * If I could'nt have edited as an anon, I wouldn't have registered. Superior1 20:10, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Some anons are morons (i.e. vandals) but there are some like you who are truly meaning to help out. -→ Buchanan-Hermit ™ /?!  02:44, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Roger that, captain! -- Pilotguy (roger that) 04:35, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The best (only?) active anon on WP with over 2000 edits. It just goes to show how useful anons can be, even if they do not have certain functions. Fredil Yupigo15:33, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Not the only one, 68.39.174.238 posts boatloads (I imagine they know eachother by now.) I post a little, but I don't know if I really count as anon. :) 207.145.133.34 15:47, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Anonymous contributors are like the little gnomes that run around quietly and improve Wikipedia articles. Also vandalize, but based on my research so far, mostly improve. —     04:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * True long-time anon editors aren't even identifiable as such (and yes, they exist), unless they have had a single fixed IP the whole time. Having a user page is a bit of a sellout. I'm not sure that your point is well made this way, because 69.145.123.171 now has an identity as much as a registered user. In fact, more than, say, a registered user without a user page. -Dan 70.30.114.149 01:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I realized that having a userpage would certainly cheapen it; however, I hate red links. I want an identity, though, that's the thing. People should see that while anons aren't the greatest Wikipedians ever, they can have identities and in fact be good users. It's also how most users get their start. Having a userpage doesn't give me any special advantagies, it just helps me be identified. So there.  69.145.123.171 Hello!  Saturday, August 12, 2006, 19:48 (UTC) (on AOL :P)


 * I love anons-- Ch ili  14  22:22, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Anonymous (or not so anonymous, as we have seen) ediotrs are the sould of Wikipedia. Abusive admins, etc. will harrass you and yours as long as there is a program called "wiki" or until they are all banned, but remember to damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead!!!!! —$ΡЯΙNGεrαgђ (-¢|  ε  |Ŀ|T|♪-) 15:18, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * People should do random article patrol more. If they do, they will learn that the encyclopedia is mostly written by anons, and then edited into shape by registered users and admins. Zocky | picture popups 00:09, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The great power of Wikipedia comes from the anons. I myself, now an admin, created an article as an anon. If I never created that article, I wouldn't have ever discovered this wonderful world. Say No to anon-discrimination! Say Yes' to Wiki-equality! GizzaChat  &#169; 06:17, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I myself have done many anon edits, where I wouldn't want my username to occur. Support the anonimists! @kshay 10:30, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Rock on! 206.124.31.24 10:56, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 68.39.174.238 17:33, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Support annoymous editing!--24.20.69.240 04:03, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Go anon Uncle Kitia 18:21, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * If it weren't for anon editors, half the pro-wrestling articles wouldn't be there! Anons are just as important to Wikipedia as us registered editors! -Darryl Hamlin 05:54, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Chris5897 (talk &bull; contribs &bull; count &bull; [/wiki/Special:Log?user= logs ] &bull; [/wiki/Special:Log/move?user= page moves ] &bull; [/wiki/Special:Log/block?page=User: block log ] &bull; email) 16:21, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * If it weren't for anons, teh Miles "Tails" Prower page wouldn't be what it is today! Karrmann 02:30, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * ANON POWER! WooooT!! Borisblue 04:07, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Who cares if your username is numbers or letters?! Anthony 21:14, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Over half of my edits have been as an anon, it saves me the time of logging in.--the marble 23:53, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Anon editors need to be able to edit, the Main Page says so: Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. I wouldn't have bothered to make an account if I couldn't edit certainly. Go the IP addresses =D --WikiSlasher 15:43, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I wish I could find that article I read where someone worked out that most of Wikipedia's content actually comes from anonymous editors. Keep up the great work! -GTBacchus(talk) 03:18, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * See Who Writes Wikipedia?. Carcharoth 15:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I got into Wikipedia by anon-editing a couple of spelling mistakes in articles I was reading. I have since gone on to over 5,000 edits as a registered user. Had I not been able to edit the page as an anon, I would never have bothered starting. Cynical 12:08, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I actually am watching this page just because I think that it's so cool to have some anons left in this world. Rock on!--Clyde Miller 23:47, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * You rock man. Long live the anons, or the good ones at least. ← A NAS ''' <font size="-3"><font color="DodgerBlue">Talk? 12:50, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * You're the best IP out there. Rock on. ~ EdBoy[c] 01:10, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I was an anon before I was Sahmeditor (and my friend vandalized under my account), but you are right. We all were anons sometime, and we should make a userbox stating our beliefs! Sa  hm  ed  it  or ( Æ e  t  l  r   C  r  e  e j l   N  S  F sign here, please) 23:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * YES! Support anonymous editors! Many anons are good contributors,and it is sad that they almost never get answered (By the way, that is my IP) when questions are asked. --68.224.239.145, or   <font color="red" face="stencil">(Talk)  08:05, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * After seeing this page, I remembered what it was like to be an anon myself and decided to be more friendly to anons in the future. My comment became a bit too long to be posted here in its entirety, you can read it here. - ∅  ( ∅ ), 21:49, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * This is what wiki means. Prejudice is always bad. -- Menti  fisto  14:33, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I have no issues with sporadic IP editors. I started editing as one. I do have a problem with longstanding IP editor. It's impossible to have an ongoing discussion with an editor whose identity changes regularly because their IP keeps changing. If you are going to edit regularly, for the long-term, you will need to engage other editors and for that you need to have a continuous identity, whether that is an IP number or a username. But if you just come on to fix a typo or misspelling, there is no reasons to register as far as I'm concerned. Liz <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">Read! Talk! 21:31, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Besides the arguments mentioned in the essay and comments, the recruitment benefit, I occasionally look into the IP contributions out of curiosity. It is exciting to find decade-old edits there. It is like receiving a message in a bottle. ––Elominius (talk) 21:39, 7 October 2022 (UTC)