Association of Wikipedians Who Dislike Making Broad Judgments About the Worthiness of a General Category of Article, and Who Are in Favor of the Deletion of Some Particularly Bad Articles, but That Doesn't Mean They Are Deletionists/Members

Add links
From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki

  1. I am in Younes Zarou (talk) 08:50, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Count me in 25songa (talk) 01:13, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Möp! --Torben Friedrich (talk) 17:52, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Count me in. Guardian-of-Lost-Scrolls (talk) 14:51, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I just had to join this because of the super-long name. Ngeaup (talk) 16:38, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  6. I am a new member here now ! Shrikanthv (talk) 14:38, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  7. I will delete only those who need deletion- Scientific Alan 2 (talk) 16:14, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Ha, I am first. Algamicagrat (talk) 21:41, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  9. I Love You, always your mate. Thewine 18:10, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Articles that are really bad need to be deleted (No deletionism) Thank you.Cupstacker
  11. Medio tutissimus ibis. The enemy of the good is the perfect. Patronanejo 11:02, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Judgement is wrong.Onyx321 (Wikipedia page)
  13. I hate bad articles (that doesn't mean I'm a deletionist, just wise) so I feel that anyone who is stupid enough to make one (no I'm not planning on edit warring) should be whipped (kidding) and have the article deleted. Mr. R00t
  14. I am in favor of the deletion of this particularly bad article, but that doesn't mean I am a deletionist. So hereby pledge allegiance until this article is deleted. Nhandler 05:57, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oh look, here's my name again. Ashibaka 00:55, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  16. ‣ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ 03:52, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC) - hahaha...
  17. BrokenSegue 01:58, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)- why not?
  18. Gtrmp 02:20, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  19. Thanks Ashibaka for providing a "middle ground". Objective Researcher 05:11, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  20. Who cares what the goals are, the name alone is cool enough to make me want to join! Jnc 16:51, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  21. I disagree with proposed "common goals." Adraeus 13:47, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  22. I support my local AWWDMBJAWGCAWAIFDSPBATDMTD representative. Plus, I'm now a member of everything but the Deletionist and Apathetic associations, so I'm bound to get lots of new friends. Wheee! (^_^) JRM 14:47, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  23. One of us! One of us! Stargat
  24. --CiaraBeth 17:52, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC) Yay! Finally found somewhere I fit.
  25. I think I also signed up to be an inclusionist, or at least considered it. I hope that doesn't disqualify me. TUF-KAT 22:06, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  26. Tatteredpaper | (talk) Very Nice.
  27. I don't join nothing -- count me in! -Rholton 05:55, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  28. Anything this wishy-washy is inherently worthy. IMeowbot 18:01, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  29. \Mike 20:20, 2005 Jan 25 (UTC) yeah, this is so me :)
  30. Aurea mediocritas. —Charles P. 19:26, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  31. This looks like it includes my general POV about stuff. Alphax 02:17, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC
  32. Ah, a club for me! Bratsche 03:14, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  33. Ah, yes. This fits me just fine. Can I get the motto on a bumper sticker? – ClockworkSoul 18:06, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  34. The partylike wrangling over deletionism scares me. Really, who bloody cares if someone's a deletionist or an inclusionist. →Iñgólemo← talk 07:42, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  35. Boffy b 21:45, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC) For great justice!
  36. After a great deal of consideration, I feel this association is the place for me. Thryduulf 10:21, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  37. As above. TAS 10:49, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  38. Sounds good to me. Revived 16:59, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  39. How can I pass up membership in a group with such a great name? It even describes my thinking somewhat. DaveTheRed 01:26, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  40. Salvete, amici. Kia ora. Robin Patterson 00:46, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  41. Francesco
  42. iamorlando I wouldn't consider myself a member of this particular club but i've listed myself here anyways
  43. Taco Deposit
  44. --Jondel 09:02, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)-
  45. Longwinded names strike such a chord in me. *tear* --Addesso 21:36, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  46. DoubleBlue (Talk) 21:29, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  47. *Kat* Hey, now this is my sort of association.
  48. ecallow, official Health & Safety adviser of the association.
  49. Node ue 18:17, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Mindspillage 02:52, 20 May 2005 (UTC) Not only true, but I adore the name.[reply]
  51. Antandrus 18:12, 21 May 2005 (UTC) Not only are things in the world, including Wikipedia, not in black and white, but things in "black and white" aren't in black and white.[reply]
  52. Wikipedia has enough space to accomondate many non-notable articles. However, I would turn away from any articles featuring corpses - Simfish 01:05, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  53. You know what you doing. Pufferfish101 02:14, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  54. I love the name of this group. It fits me perfectly. Mred64 15:47, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  55. Laura Scudder | Talk 21:30, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  56. Yay, a club for me! Firestorm 19:09, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  57. This is by far the stupidest, most useless waste of space on all of Wikimedia and I hereby sign up as a member. Midster 00:27, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  58. :Can't be any worse then most real political parties :D --Phroziac (talk) 18:00, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  59. :-) Dan100 08:20, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  60. user:zanimum
  61. Bcat (talk) 17:19, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  62. Omegatron
  63. This is my kind of POV. <>Who[[:w:en:User%20talk:Who<font|color=#00Ff00>?¿?]] 09:09, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  64. TheMidnighters 18:27, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) I join but cannot be held accountable on account of clinical insanity.
  66. Get_It 02:40, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  67. The wub 09:14, 14 July 2005 (UTC) yay! \(^o^)/[reply]
  68. Yay for the name - short and succinct, just as I like it... -- Marcika 15:39, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  69. I'm already a member at AIW but I'm making a point out of joining this as well. --AceMyth 22:33, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  70. I think this could fall under the category of the Use common sense guideline. Anyway, with a name like this, I have to join. w:User:JesseW 06:32, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Huzzah! User:Teentitans i need to start logging in...
  72. Ah, suitably vague... Yes! Flowerparty 14:41, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Blockinblox 15:47, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Clavicula Pontifex 21:12, 15 march -6000 (UTC). Now now... there are no absolute premises upon which a post can be deemed unworthy. At the very foundation of any utterance is meaning that tallies not with an objective reality outside ourselves; instead these are mere instruments to satisfy human needs, categories we impose on reality to make it practical to our subjective existence. This is why the "Some Particularly Bad Articles" statement can only be rooted in a subjective position, with a corresponding opposite position that is not more nor less valid; One can therefore not trump the other in an objectively justifiable manner... This is why I call for truncation of the association's title to a mere "Editing Association of Wikipedians Who Dislike Making Broad Judgements About the Worthiness of a General Category of Article".
  75. LoopZilla 20:23, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Sjakkalle 13:17, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Phase2 of Wikipedianism now beckons.Phase1 11:32, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  78. When I am able to pronounce "AWWDMBJAWGCAWAIFDSPBATDMTD" three times quickly, I will know it is time to take a wikibreak. Nandesuka 15:32, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Following the crowd. --BenKovitz 17:39, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Cmadler 13:09, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  81. I like... Kwekubo 23:08, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  82. I'm so far in it's not funny. --Apyule 00:38, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Count me in. — ナイトスタリオン ㇳ–ㇰ — 11:32, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Include me in. --GraemeL 15:12, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  85. I've been tending towards inclusionism lately, but this still words my views most effectively although it's 'a bit' more wordy than the Association of mergist Wikipedians. - [[User:MacGyverMagic|MacGyverMagic|(talk)]] 18:45, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  86. I agree with all of you but I reserve the right disagree with some of you, most of you or everyone at a later date. Otherwise i'm neutral. Joshurtree 07:32, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Eric's penguin. Might as well. 6 October 2005
  88. Jrquinlisk 06:47, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  89. --Gaff 21:14, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Mgroetan 21:08, 23 October 2005
  91. Karmafist 04:51, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  92. TantalumTelluride 01:14, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Psy guy 23:45, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  94. --Violingirl 20:58, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  95. Wikipedia isn't paper, but it isn't a junkyard either. -Mysekurity 07:19, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  96. User:Pydos Great idea, just hope i can say the name in one breath.
  97. Phoenix-forgotten
  98. Jaxl 03:02, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  99. What the heck. Count me in! Shmuel 22:33, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  100. Hey, Ill join too!! — Moe ε 23:39, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  101. Shiny button! I'm in, because I'm generally inclusionist, except when the articles are patent nonsense. Kerowyn 01:15, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  102. OwenX 21:48, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  103. Magadan talk 14:55, 4 December 2005 (UTC) And I just founded the german-speaking section of AWWDMBJAWGCAWAIFDSPBATDMTD, the Vereinigung von Wikipedianerinnen und Wikipedianern, die undifferenzierten Urteilen über den enzyklopädischen Wert ganzer Themenbereiche kritisch gegenüberstehen, jedoch die Löschung besonders schlechter Artikel unterstützen, ohne deshalb Deletionisten zu sein (VvWuWduUüdeWgTkgjdLbsAuodDzs) on de.wikipedia. Join me! Jeder will be secretary.[reply]
  104. If I'm a mergist, then I'm probably one of this group too. Jokermage 04:12, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  105. Ignus 22:22, 10 December 2005 (UTC) Taking a stand for not taking a stand.[reply]
  106. This is the best group I've seen on Wiki! Count me in! D-Rock 13:50, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  107. I'm going to join, not only because the name is long, but also because it is cumbersome! Plus, my favorite flavor of waffle is John Kerry. ^_^ Cernen 10:47, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  108. I'll be honest: I just wanted that cool, really long graphic. Antifamilymang
  109. I was inspired to join this association by a lecture I attended yesterday entitled "The Gandhian Critique of the Thick Notion of Scientific Rationalism and its antecedence in the Opposition to the Enlightenment by the Radical wing of 17th Century English Liberal Thought". --Kunal (talk)14:43, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  110. I'm in --Berney 18:51, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  111. Flarn2005 20:46, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  112. Balance is key. --BenjaminTsai 09:31, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  113. --JAranda | watz sup 21:48, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  114. --Frank Schulenburg 19:48, 30 December 2005 (UTC) (bekehrter ehemaliger Inklusionist). Greetings to Magadan.[reply]
  115. Sean
  116. Matt Yeager 04:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  117. Arviragus 06:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  118. :Now you're #149. :) Ashibaka 06:54, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  119. —Locke Cole • t • c 08:33, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  120. : Your link was to metawiki, I corrected it to go to english wikipedia --Rdoger6424 23:59, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  121. :: Your link was invalid, I corrected it to go to an actual page --Timrem 02:51, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  122. I'm just here for the acronym and the free coffee. Adrian 06:22, 17 January 2006 (UTC) (*)[reply]
  123. I'm here for the userbox. Vsion 06:16, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  124. Mushroom 07:09, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  125. Evaluationist. That's my wikiview - every article, category, or other vote or discussion should be evaluated on it's merits. This is purdy much that. Blu Aardvark 09:57, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  126. Leifern is in and thinks deletionists are self-righteous prigs who probably can't take a joke either.
  127. im with you guys BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard
  128. Patterson mdash; Everyday the internet keeps getting better and better.
  129. Some pages just don't belong in an encyclopedia. -Chairman S. 07:20, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  130. --Lilja ♫ 22:18, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  131. I don't like odd numbers, so I'll probably resign soon and re-up again later. Please don't take it personal. Jon Awbrey 15:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  132. --Reo On 22:43, 3 February 2006 (UTC) This means view from good POV. I like it ;o) (And the name was good first attraction to it, not the reason to join)[reply]
  133. I thoroughly agree.--DakotaKahn 04:49, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  134. Caesarion 15:01, 15 February 2006 (UTC) I am close to being deletionist, but I really don't like the retorics some of them are using.[reply]
  135. --Proofreader 16:49, 17 February 2006 (UTC) I am a moderate inclusionist and, if I am not mistaken, I am the third German member of this truly international organization AWWDMBJAWGCAWAIFDSPBATDMTD (greetings to my fellow comrads Magadan and Frank Schulenburg). Well, if I may, I'd like to run for the office of the vice-vice-president/chairman/generalissimus/whatever of the German section of AWWDblahblahMTD :-D. [reply]
  136. Branddobbe 01:44, 19 February 2006 (UTC) Delicious.[reply]
  137. Arundhati bakshi 07:16, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  138. Cymsdale 11:54, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  139. Haza-w 12:27, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  140. Dancraggs 17:16, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  141. --Nomader 04:49, 4 March 2006 (UTC) - finally, middle ground I can stand on. With a cool graphic.[reply]
  142. DanielDemaret 13:58, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  143. Zachjonse4--Zachjones4 18:18, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  144. Seems like a reasonable thing to do. Mattopaedia 04:15, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  145. This could easily be the Association of Relativist Wikipedians. Sign me up. Nuge 11:11, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  146. Why not. Do they make acronyms for acronyms? Antonrojo 14:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  147. Delete draconian deletion policies! Feezo
  148. Ambassador from the Neutral Planet's user name is ElementalChromium 01:04, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  149. Viva Poulpy ! ~Pyb 18:42, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  150. Jessymac 18:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC) It's not my place to judge, but there's some stuff we could live without.[reply]
  151. Hooray for this association! — ßottesiηi (talk) 00:56, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  152. I like long names.-Gangsta-Easter-Bunny 12:32, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  153. I like long names too and this is just a better fit than strict deletionism. --Strothra 01:39, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  154. I think I've finally made up my mind. This place has a cooler template than the Inclusionists...and people's panties aren't in such a bunch. Cathryn 13:24, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  155. -- kh80 21:44, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  156. Yay, I'm a member of the Association of Wikipedians who dislike making broad judgements about *zzzzzzz* TrianaC 03:14, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  157. Ouch! Get off of me! Wait... It doesn't matter now, since I'm a member of the... Whatever it's called! Alx xlA 02:06, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  158. user: f 22 Rice is nice but its at a price. logie!
  159. Goldom 05:40, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  160. I've always wanted to be in a club with a really long name Hamish (Talk) 12:57, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  161. PixVonn 19:47, 7 July 2006 (UTC) until something convinces me other wise, I am down with the ethos of this assoc.[reply]
  162. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ
  163. Itm sorry, asscociation of drunk ranting wikipedians? this is great!--Musaabdulrashid 10:07, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  164. ...--Mac Wanter 01:32, 20 July 2006 (UTC)--[reply]
  165. Your program is a little sweeping and one-sided, but I join despite my reservations. --Celithemis 13:00, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  166. Some things aren't for an Encyclopedia. Everything else shall be here. Locoluis 22:40, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  167. Oscar . 05:22, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  168. --Irmgard 17:48, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  169. --Davidlud 19:01, 29 August 2006 (UTC) :-)[reply]
  170. I like things with long names --Marblewonder 20:03, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  171. weirdoactor 21:30, 3 November 2006 (UTC) - I'm not joining. I'm just here for the snacks. There...are snacks, yes?[reply]
  172. Vlad 13:07, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  173. mzlla 15:50, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  174. --Howrealisreal 01:40, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  175. Hooah. Dev920 10:57, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  176. Woah~ So I am the two hundred and ninety-eighth member of this A.W.W... err... Association of Wikipedian Who... argh~! Whatever! --Golvin 13:39, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  177. I really don't wanna' belong to anything willing to accept me as a member
  178. aaww, so cute! How can I not join? Trubadurix 20:02, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  179. We need more of these common-sense groups. Blast 24,11,06 0048 (UTC -5) I have since changed my polarisation to support the Association of Exclusionist Wikipedians. Blast 05,02,07 2319 (UTC -5)
  180. Heisenberg for Wikipedians. --Mwongozi 23:14, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  181. AHAHA! I have joined now! Good for me. Great motto and goal and stuff. doughmuffins|talk to me!
  182. Cool, an organization with an overly long and kooky name...not just the Organization of Fair-weather Fans, eh? (well, I'm kinda inclusionist, but it's not a rule set in stone, so...) Rickyrab 22:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  183. Az1568 03:01, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  184. Mmoneypenny 07:53, 10 December 2006 (UTC) Last (for now) but hopefully not least.[reply]
  185. Albertsab@cawiki 14:08, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  186. Greeves 02:59, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  187. Yes. This expresses my view nigh-perfectly. However, I really can't justify adorning my user page with such a monstrosity of a userbox.(apologies to w:User:LtPowers) Mathmo 15:35, 23 December 2006 (UTC) also, Mathmo[reply]
  188. Mwikiaddict Most definitely.
  189. I guess this means I'll be obligated to shackle myself to a tree outside AfD the next time a group of mast articles gets nominated for deletion as each spire is special. --Ceyockey 00:02, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  190. Thunderhead herby notes his association with the AWWDMBJAWGCAWAIFDSPBATDMTAD. Right. Okay. Thunderhead 06:16, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  191. Christopher Woods 15:17, 3 January 2007 (UTC) -- Monstrosity of a userbox? Its beauty is in its boldness, as its outrageously-long acronym graces my userpage. Two thumbs up from me.[reply]
  192. User:Tomtom9041 02:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC) -- Gotta love it. Alot. And I wholeheartedly agree.[reply]
  193. Mine, on the other hand, will be at the top forever! Ahahaha! Ahahahahaha! Ruaraidh-dobson 20:30, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  194. I know that my username will not be at the top forever; I take solace in the fact that it will never be at the bottom! Your one true god is David P. A. Hunter, esq. III Talk to me! 07:00, 7 August 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  195. I'm on top! Deal with it! --Salocin 08:57, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  196. No I'm on top because I have the mighty word of FNORD! Whispering 03:05, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  197. No, Seahen, you can't be at the top, because I am! (SNORK!) Akcarver 19:25, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  198. Can I be at the top of the list? It doesn't say anywhere that I have to be at the bottom, does it? Seahen 18:22, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  199. Oh, oh, me too! J.smith 00:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  200. Wouldn't it suck if you had to write a paper about this group? Nishkid64 00:40, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  201. Wow what a long list... --Majorly 00:43, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  202. Yeah, this is probably one of the greatest usergroups of all time. Yeah. Now for quadruple-tilde STRIKE! Ranmoth 04:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC). Oh, wait...[reply]
  203. Jakslev 17:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  204. A firm believer. Jsymmetry 19:23, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  205. I place absolute trust in a group with such firm beliefs. Alton 05:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  206. Just the kind of association I wanted in Wikipedia! Pi72 09:57, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  207. Wow, Im 327 in line. wonder what i get at the end... chickenfeed9
  208. Good group. I don't completely agree with either of Wikimedia's two strongest factions, the Inclusionists & Deletionists. Inclusionists are too sappy and Deletionists are too snobby. Both groups think they're always right.-Wikiphilia 02:32, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  209. Being a new member to the Association of Wikipedians Who Dislike Making Broad Judgments About the Worthiness of a General Category of Article, and Who Are in Favor of the Deletion of Some Particularly Bad Articles, but That Doesn't Mean They Are Deletionists or in short the AWWDMBJAWGCAWAIFDSPBATDMTD, I feel different. This could take some getting used to. :) Mjunnior 14:32, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  210. Finally, a straightforward philosphy. Something I get get my hands on. --Fbv65edel 02:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  211. This group definitely fits me. I will be here to stay --Japanimation14 19:03 , 20 February 2007 (EST)
  212. I believe in the philosophy of this project and would like to promote this way of thinking. --Leon2323 20:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  213. I have total faith in this highly considered and strongly principled philosophy. DWaterson 19:02, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  214. I believe descression is needed when choosing what to delete in Wikipedia. Captain panda 03:22, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  215. I think the Association of Wikipedians Who Dislike Making Broad Judgments About the Worthiness of a General Category of Article, and Who Are in Favor of the Deletion of Some Particularly Bad Articles, but That Doesn't Mean They Are Deletionists is the best idea since sliced bread. And keyboards. And the internet. And broadband. And wikipedia. And Association of Wikipedians Who Dislike Making Broad Judgments About the Worthiness of a General Category of Article, and Who Are in Favor of the Deletion of Some Particularly Bad Articles, but That Doesn't Mean They Are Deletionists. Oh, wait, that's what I was on about anyway. Never mind. Themcman1 14:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  216. 'Have patience with everything unresolved and try to love the questions themselves.' Rainer Maria Rilke.--Ziji 23:58, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  217. I've been accused of being a deletionist, an inclusionist, and everything in between, so I think this is the place for me. BlastOButter42 22:55, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  218. This describe me prefectly April Is Really Fooled 15:19, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  219. Does this mean I'm wishy-washy? Count me in anyway, I think. Shuttlebug 21:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  220. I got very annoyed about this [1] (1:21) decision so stopped doing serious editing and now just putz around. So.... is this a place where I can get that odious deletion undone and can then get on with my real editing? Carptrash 02:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  221. How many WWDMBJAWGCAWAIFDSPBATDMTD's we got around here, anyway? YO! --DragonHawk 11:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  222. I don't know, but here's one more: Oadams 23:48, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  223. I pledge allegiance to the AWWDMBJAWGCAWAIFDSPBATDMTD, so that I may fell good about deleting horrible articles, but helping bad articles. Boricuaeddie 02:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  224. I don't fit into any other catagory, so I guess now, I'm a member of the AWWDMBJAWGCAWAIFDSPBATDMTD.Whoo! Go inletionists!Darth Gladius 01:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  225. couldn't agree with the ethos of AWWDMBJAWGCAWAIFDSPBATDMTD more, I'm so in. SemperFideliS81 01:58, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  226. mmmmmmm AWWDMBJAWGCAWAIFDSPBATDMTD.... Jamesontai 13:53, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  227. LaraLove 05:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  228. Thewinchester Because all forms of corpcruft are just plain dreadful and need to be dealt with quickly, if by reliable sources or by deletion.
  229. wegobad Yay! I'm number 361! (Which just happens to be the number of intersections on a 19x19 Go board, so how can I resist?) 11:10, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
  230. zeke72791
  231. Chr.K. Mostly harmless.
  232. User:Kinkijui KNK! >—[[]]—<
  233. NeoNerd 22:01, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  234. User:Wizardman: Okay, I'll join the Association of Wikipedians Who Dislike Making Broad Judgments About the Worthiness of a General Category of Article, and Who Are in Favor of the Deletion of Some Particularly Bad Articles, but That Doesn't Mean They Are Deletionists. Wizardman 02:30, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  235. Been waitin' a long time to do this! Angular 19:22, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  236. Overly verbose and indecisive? The perfect association for me!! -Kotra 23:15, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  237. It's scary how much this describes me. J-stan 00:26, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  238. Ditto J-stan.  $PЯINGεrαgђ 
  239. Wile objecting to joining something that restricts my options like this someone does need to be no 376 --Herby talk thyme 19:08, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  240. Sign me up! --Willbyr 17:23, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  241. I'm Home! Marcus Cyron 19:48, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  242. I'm joining! Rycr 09:17, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  243. Oh if this existed in real life ! ℒibrarian2 20:49, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  244. Kotra said it b/sup> 07:00, 7 August 2006 (UTC).
  245. I'm on top! Deal with it! --Salocin 08:57, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  246. No I'm on top because I have the mighty word of FNORD! Whispering 03:05, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  247. No, Seahen, you can't be at the top, because I am! (SNORK!) Akcarver 19:25, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  248. Can I be at the top of the list? It doesn't say anywhere that I have to be at the bottom, does it? Seahen 18:22, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  249. Oh, oh, me too! J.smith 00:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  250. Wouldn't it suck if you had to write a paper about this group? Nishkid64 00:40, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  251. Wow what a long list... --Majorly 00:43, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  252. Yeah, this is probably one of the greatest usergroups of all time. Yeah. Now for quadruple-tilde STRIKE! Ranmoth 04:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC). Oh, wait...[reply]
  253. Jakslev 17:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  254. A firm believer. Jsymmetry 19:23, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  255. I place absolute trust in a group with such firm beliefs. Alton 05:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  256. Just the kind of association I wanted in Wikipedia! Pi72 09:57, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  257. Wow, Im 327 in line. wonder what i get at the end... chickenfeed9
  258. Good group. I don't completely agree with either of Wikimedia's two strongest factions, the Inclusionists est. Verbose and indecisive for me. A group for those of us who aren't blinded by black and white agendas. Not quite Gray, either. Kalthuras 23:19, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  259. Hsilamot (Insultos | Contribuciones) 21:13, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  260. Home is, where reason is. Heart is, where compromise exists. --Mghamburg 13:02, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  261. As a non-sectarian inclusionist with academic backgrounds and lots of print reference books and a Britannica on DVD for lack of shelfspace who wonders about the notability of many articles but usually is not for deleting them and knows that would make an even longer group name, I support the AWWDMBJAWGCAWAIFDSPBATDMTD if I find the time to do so. --Gwyndon 18:23, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  262. Tkasmai 21:29, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  263. Fattyjwoods 01:08, 1 December 2007 (UTC) man whats up with the long name? I wanna joinFattyjwoods 01:08, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  264. bibliomaniac15 23:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  265. Ornithopter 09:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  266. Wisdom89 Wisdom89 06:43, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  267. I'm a fan of CSD and all that jazz, but the middle ground is where it's at. --jonny-mt 07:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  268. oooooooooooooh, Harland1 16:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  269. --MisterWiki 04:27, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  270. Max.diems (note: name change request entered for change to MaxHarmony)
  271. Aeetlrsk 23:53, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  272. I hate deletionists, and I'm a confirmed inclusionist, but somethings need to be deleted. TorstenGuise 19:20, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  273. broadway4life155 I belive that articles need to be improved not deleted, but sometimes some pages are just too far beyond help.
  274. Circumspection and moderate equivocation have much to recommend them. --Sfmammamia 22:28, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  275. —La Pianista (T•C) 16:46, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  276. I had this group's title tattooed on my back before I knew it existed. Thank God I found it. CactusWriter 14:37, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  277. Wow. I can't express my Wiki sentiments in any fewer words. Joelster 08:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  278. --Bennettjm 01:56, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  279. This almost perfectly states my sentiments. +me J.delanoygabsadds 06:03, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  280. A wonderful philosophy. Nazgul533 01:00, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  281. Tyciol 17:32, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  282. Protonk 05:23, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  283. I may have some problems with the translation from the Latin Motto, But... Excellent viewpoint, one which I share, BrianKnez
  284. All for Association of Wikipedians Who Dislike Making Broad Judgments About the Worthiness of a General Category of Article, and Who Are in Favor of the Deletion of Some Particularly Bad Articles, but That Doesn't Mean They Are Deletionists/Members, and Association of Wikipedians Who Dislike Making Broad Judgments About the Worthiness of a General Category of Article, and Who Are in Favor of the Deletion of Some Particularly Bad Articles, but That Doesn't Mean They Are Deletionists/Members for all! Ilikepie2221 20:51, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  285. —CyclonenimT@lk? 18:31, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  286. Preschooler.at.heart 00:25, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  287. ∞Fr33kmantalk APW 15:45, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  288. I'm in, I s'pose. Down with generalisations! --Ω 22:16, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  289. Tealwisp 20:11, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  290. evil0sheep 00:04, 07 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  291. Interesting name. I'll join. Hi878 23:31, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  292. This is valid and humorous - perfect! --Cmputer 17:19, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  293. Count me in...this is very interesting. Willking1979 00:37, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  294. --Cerejota 04:52, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  295. I...I had no idea there were other's like me...Lot49a 01:38, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  296. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 16:27, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  297. Whoo-hoo! PieMan.EXE 22:37, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  298. I'm in. All generalizations suck. Wikipedia should be useful! Jnnnnn 05:54, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  299. –Juliancolton (talk) 00:39, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  300. Yes. Sign me up. Razorflame 00:40, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  301. Include me. Deconstructhis 16:52, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  302. Sounds like a good idea Cabe6403 19:09, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  303. According to the "Zeroeth Law of Wikipedia", the problem with Wikipedia is that it only works in practice -- in theory, it can never work. AWWDMBJAWGCAWAIFDSPBATDMTD gets this. -- Shunpiker 06:03, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  304. This looks like the only reasonable middle ground between deletionism and inclusionism. Except maybe transwikism. Psbsub 02:00, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  305. Nice one, Ashibaka. Count me in. Xyptero Some time that i can't be stuffed to find out, some date ditto. (Odds are that this time is not in UTC)
  306. The New Mikemoral 01:16, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  307. I will encourage others to join this association because I believe it lacks of members --Damërung ...ÏìíÏ..._ΞΞΞ_ . -- 21:13, 29 April 2009 (UTC-5)
  308. I'm in this boat. Count me in! T3chl0v3r 22:14, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  309. Deletionists and inclusionists - a plague on both their houses. Fences and windows 13:30, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  310. Awesome! It says what it means and it means what it says! HJ Mitchell 13:48, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  311. Catchy. I like it. Chzz 04:58, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  312. I fixed the numbers because someone deleted a #. Thank me later. Ollie Garkey 14:56, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  313. Now I just need to figure out how to cram all this onto a button.CABridges 18:34, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  314. Flashdornfeld 17:52, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  315. Its all good :) Jenuk1985 23:22, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  316. --Courtlandsmith 16:59, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  317. Jacek FH 13:29, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  318. Oops, looks like I really pressed the 'Save' button. --Goutamkhandelwal 13:11, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  319. Add me. ···Katerenka (討論) 00:35, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  320. Recursively neutral, but not neutrally recursive. Vicenarian 17:46, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  321. Awesome word even more awesome goals. Jamesofur 06:57, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  322. I'm surprised that you managed to come up with such a memorable name - how could I not join! Also, it kinda reflects what I think - bonus! Phantomsteve 23:08, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  323. I'm tired of seeing new pages deleted without regards to how the article can be fixed. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, it can include articles that aren't often in real paper encyclopedias. This doesn't mean that articles don't need to be notable, but whether or not a topic is in Encyclopedia Brittanica, or any similar encyclopedia shouldn't be a guideline between if a topic is notable. Wikipedia isn't a traditional encyclopedia. it's special.Ojay123 23:57, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  324. Inclined to join. Equally inclined to propose the founding of an Association of Wikipedians Who Dislike Making Broad Judgments About the Worthiness of a General Category of Article, and Who Are in Favor of the Deletion of Some Particularly Bad Articles, but That Doesn't Mean They Are Deletionists, Although They Are Meanwhile Rather Surprised to Find Themselves Willing To Join This Group, Not Being, As A Rule, Joiners. Michaelocc 01:14, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  325. Yes. This. User:Quasirandom on Wikipedia, without an account here. 16:34, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
  326. With such a simple name, how could I possibly not join... -- Houghster 16:05, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  327. Je n'ai pas tout compris mais j'ai bien ri quand même ! EPolti 08:26, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  328. Awesome, I'm in!--Jakkinx 21:02, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  329. Finally, the moderates. Fetchcomms 01:06, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  330. Now this is my kind of association! Killer Magikarp 03:22, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  331. • Anakin101 16:29, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  332. Join. Generalizations are bad. Oops, that was a generalization. SOME generalizations are bad. There I fixed it. Best Association of Wikipedians ever! Specs112 17:57, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  333. Join, now that I am deleting an article , but want it saved! --Simfan34 (talk) 16:20, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  334. Perfect! Sabiona
  335. The fact that this association exists may occasionally distract editors from the purpose of WMF projects, but hell, I'll take the risk! Physchim62 15:18, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  336. This is better than being extreme either way. I support this project! Kayau 12:04, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  337. Pmlineditor ∞ 12:24, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  338. Fringedlunatic613
  339. GodRocks127 To quote Sirius Black (He's from Harry Potter, for those of you who don't know) "The world isn't divided into good people and Death Eaters. We've each got little bit of light and dark in us."
  340. Rock drum I see no reason that anyone could not like this!
  341. Best group ever. Manishearth 04:56, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  342. I'm in! O'DaveY 07:29, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  343. Hmm...I never added my name here, though I've had the userbox on my enwiki page for years. Let's rectify that. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:00, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  344. I express this philosophy. NativeForeigner 05:24, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  345. Seems to fit with me. Closedspace 12:52, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  346. Morg 11:14, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  347. I hereby pledge alliance to the awesome AWWDMBJAWGCAWAIFDSPBATDMTD movement. I've been expecting this for years.--Darwinius 12:01, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  348. Marcipangris I am an inclusionist, but only regarding articles created by me. ;)
  349. I just happen to stumble upon a group whose name says it all. Optiguy54 20:14, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  350. Good idea. Inclusionists who listen to common sense (bad articles should be deleted). I think we should get a shorter name though. --Alpha Quadrant 21:20, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  351. I like this group's philosophy. Joining. —MC10 (T•C•L•EM) 21:54, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  352. The principle is just right: every law has exceptions. rursus 13:28, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  353. I concur to all the above. Fridae'sDoom 06:28, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  354. The name says it all. Although, just maybe, those bad articles give those corresponding bad editors something else to turn their hands to - meaning that they won't be messing up our good/important/interesting articles. Mr.choppers 12:21, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  355. I hereby pledge my allegiance to Association of Wikipedians Who Dislike Making Broad Judgments About the Worthiness of a General Category of Article, and Who Are in Favor of the Deletion of Some Particularly Bad Articles, but That Doesn't Mean They Are Deletionists.--Forty two 11:04, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  356. A brilliant idea! Nolelover 20:19, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  357. Splunge for me too!Mercurywoodrose 08:20, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  358. Kwiki 23:50, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  359. Consider myself a member. elektrikSHOOS 01:54, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  360. I don't like deleting articles. I feel that most articles that are created on Wikipedia can be improved with a little editing. However, I do agree that some articles are inappropriate for an encyclopedia. And that is why I am now a member of the Association of Wikipedians Who Dislike Making Broad Judgements About the Worthiness of a General Article or Category, and Who Are in Favor of the Deletion of Some Particularly Bad Articles, but That Doesn't Mean They Are Deletionists! Troodon58 10:51, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  361. SmoothPorcupine 02:15, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  362. --Divebomb 09:30, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  363. Aroni125 21:52, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  364. A worthy cause to be sure. -- Kharay1977T
  365. C4MB 21:52, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  366. Amen, sign me up! // Brycetom 20:10, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  367. C 04:21, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  368. I think some articles should be deleted because of they don't have enough references or at least improved by othersK-LO22
  369. Moderation? I'm in. Knssilm 07:40, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  370. Hm. I finally decided to look into this association, and what do you know? I agree with it completely. EWikistTalk 01:24, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  371. I delete a lot of bad articles, however, that doesn't mean I am a deletionist. Jerry teps 07:15, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  372. Some articles should never have existed under notability guidelines, but that doesn't mean the rest shouldn't exit. Ergo, I'm signing up. Imzadi1979 20:59, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  373. I completely agree with everything here. Ajraddatz (Talk) 22:31, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  374. I am mostly in accord with a lot of the stuff this sort of stands for. Cjmclark 21:06, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  375. Nicholasc1 14:55, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  376. I'm an IRC helper and often have to ask myself the question: 'Is it worth it to help this user?'. Most of the times I realize I do not know enough of the subject to judge fairly, so I just help. But there are times when I choose to remain silent. Because through common sense alone, the article simply does not belong to an encyclopedia. Now I know I am not alone.--Obsidi♠nSoul 14:13, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  377. Count me in on this, I don't like articles which are... bad. GWPSP090 04:07, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  378. My story is similar to ObsidianSoul. Wow, I'm not alone. :) I'm Flightx52 and I approve this message 02:08, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  379. This is how you join, right? I agree with the people here. Trickstergoddess 01:12, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  380. Prudentia est maximus donum: prudence is the greatest gift User:Cbrick77
  381. --Veyneru 10:34, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  382. I support this group and the destruction of this group. Ginsengbomb 22:48, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  383. --Doh5678 19:11, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  384. Forgot to put name here 4 years ago, mwahaha -- ArglebargleIV 14:32, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  385. Bulwersator 16:07, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  386. Σ 03:50, 18 July 2011 (UTC) I can be Redirectionist and Exclusionist too, right?[reply]
  387. This is interesting and humorous. Count me in~ --Tommyang 06:03, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  388. Eman2129 18:23, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  389. Yeah, i'm an AWWDMBJAWGCAWAIFDSPBATDMTADer. Vaarsivius 19:13, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  390. Count me in. Rjmains 21:12, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  391. Some articles we need as much as Ministry of Silly Walks, but it's not on me to judge. Murúg 15:53, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
  392. me too. [nkshirsagar@gmail.com] I like the AWWDMBJAWGCAWAIFDSPBATDMTD
  393. I'm in, Scientific Alan
  394. DITTO BROS - theabolitionist
  395. Joining the ranks. What else is new? Coffeegirlyme (talk)·
  396. I'm generally an exclusionist or semi-inclusionist, but this seems about right, and quite amusing as well. dci | TALK 04:35, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  397. Atlast a place where all my char matches. woo.hoo Stausifr 13:14, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  398. --JayJasper 21:42, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  399. Bzweebl
  400. arghh :)) Mike Coppolano (talk) 16:16, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  401. Trude H
  402. Illuminatusds (talk) 16:20, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  403. Zaldax (talk) 18:54, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  404. God Bless The Selectionist! SpartacksCompatriot (talk) 08:36, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  405. Count me in. Floating Boat (talk) 06:47, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  406. 朝彦 (Asahiko) (talk) 13:37, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  407. Oops, I thought I'd joined before but can't find myself on this list. Slack of me. Great initiative. Andrewa (talk) 13:33, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  408. I had joined this association on Wikipedia long before I signed my name on this list... Just sayin'! -Ano-User (talk) 12:06, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  409. Hola todos, kon'nichiwa, kinkyujishinsokuhodesu and that good stuff :P Gwickwire (talk) 04:29, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  410. L yrtneg 03:27, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  411. Lukas²³ 20:56, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  412. me Epicgenius (talk) 14:34, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  413. José Luiz talk 02:54, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  414. -- Milad A380 (talk) 16:15, 5 June 2013 (UTC) xD[reply]
  415. I did a thing. Neo12345292 (talk) 07:43, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  416. CITIZENRICKEY
  417.    L o g  X   18:18, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  418. But of course. Dwpaul (talk) 01:12, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  419. Excellent Ian Furst (talk) 00:12, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  420. Neljack
  421. I'm in this thing. Jiangchristopher1
  422. I believe that joining will help me get back into Wikipedia. WantaghNY (talk) 06:26, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  423. Wikipedia should have as much as possible, but it needs to know when to say when (Look at the Millionth topic pool for some examples). Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 16:39, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  424. For the love of God, some of these articles...are really great, and some are awful. I want all possible really greats. Origamite (talk) 22:14, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  425. Fauzan✆ talk ✉ email 15:04, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  426. Fits very well in BandWidthSaving Policy of WikiMergism IMNSHO  Klaas|Z4␟V:  13:39, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  427. Now no one else can say they were the 425th! --CamelCase (talk) 04:56, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  428. AWWDMBJAWGCAWAIFDSPBATDMTADian pride! --Supersixseven1 (talk) 01:46, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  429. Clr324 (talk) 06:56, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  430. Only delete if it is a necessity - Jjamesryan (talk) 06:12, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  431. This is a group which I support the idea of. Dustin (talk) 02:07, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  432. Fine, you win. You have me. User:spikesjb.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Spikesjb
  433. This is the best policy to maintain. —烏Γ (kaw at me in my nest), 07:06, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  434. Yes, yes, yes. Kevin12xd (talk) 16:11, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  435. I join because I want to join because I need to join because I joined. Fr33d0m0fSp33c4 (talk) 23:50, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  436. I gladly sign up! We need to put a damper on excessive deletionism. Garagepunk66 (talk) 01:15, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  437. --John123521 (talk) 14:27, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  438. Wishds (talk) 10:17, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  439. Can't tell if I'm supposed to put this at the top or here. Oh well... Me, Myself, and I are Here (talk) 21:51, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  440. --DerMaxdorfer (talk) 21:00, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  441. --TerraCodes 18:12, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  442. Excessive deletionism hurts the encyclopedia, but article with no good sources or content should be deleted - ThePlatypusofDoom Talk
  443. User:HappyValleyEditor. Am also interested in becoming the FSO (Fashion Safety Officer) for the organization.
  444. I hereby accept my nomination to the position of General Secretary. I also nominate for secretary the next person on this list. (I don't have a Meta-Wiki user page, so if you're interested, visit my talk page on the English Wikipedia.) Mooseandbruce1 (talk) 19:31, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  445. WikiPancake (talk) 12:10, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  446. TheStrayDog (talk) 11:18, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  447. Adotchar (talk)
  448. The name, but also I agree with the philosophy AnAwesomeArticleEditor (talk) 19:41, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  449. Iwant to join but my mom wont let me... — The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.69.17.18 (talk) 05:41, January 18, 2017 (UTC)
  450. stranger195 (talk • contribs • guestbook) 06:19, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  451. Deletionism is spreading and it needs a damper; And the name is more than cool. Cheers.Khawkbend (talk)
  452. Joshualouie711 (talk) 20:12, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  453. User:Jjm596 --Jjm596 (talk) 16:31, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  454. This is a good thing to have on Wikipedia, and I like to be part of something good. Also, it has its own userbox. Also, what Patronanejo said. Really, I don't see how anyone couldn't be in this. It's the fairest way to go! WikiSquirrel42 (talk) 01:25, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  455. Mel00010 (talk) 00:13, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  456. --Mychemicalromanceisrealemo (talk) 21:46, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  457. How could I not join? - LetsBeKings (talk)
  458. SgThomas
  459. HyperrealLogic (talk) 03:27, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  460. Bobherry (talk)
  461. arafey (talk) 18:17, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  462. DisgruntledGM (talk) 01:55, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  463. I want to see how long it will take people to realize that I am blocked from Wikipedia. The again, just because I’m blocked doesn’t mean I don’t have opinions about articles. As a dedicated writer, ninja, historian, baseball player, vexillogist, lawyer, astronaut, and more I take Wikipedia very seriously no matter how blocked I am. (By the way, check out my page on Wikiquote. At least there I’m allowed to edit.)Just A Regular New Yorker (talk) 02:34, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  464. The Association of Wikipedians Who Dislike Making Broad Judgments About the Worthiness of a General Category of Article, and Who Are in Favor of the Deletion of Some Particularly Bad Articles, but That Doesn't Mean They Are Deletionists seems like a good place for me. Therefore, I now consider myself a member of Association of Wikipedians Who Dislike Making Broad Judgments About the Worthiness of a General Category of Article, and Who Are in Favor of the Deletion of Some Particularly Bad Articles, but That Doesn't Mean They Are Deletionists, and I hope the Association of Wikipedians Who Dislike Making Broad Judgments About the Worthiness of a General Category of Article, and Who Are in Favor of the Deletion of Some Particularly Bad Articles, but That Doesn't Mean They Are Deletionists will enjoy my presence. Hello, Association of Wikipedians Who Dislike Making Broad Judgments About the Worthiness of a General Category of Article, and Who Are in Favor of the Deletion of Some Particularly Bad Articles, but That Doesn't Mean They Are Deletionists! EggOfReason (talk) 20:08, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  465. Count me in. I'd like to join. --Rockower (talk) 15:25, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  466. Cnzx (talk)
  467. Miguu (talk) 01:33, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  468. AWWDMBJAWGCAWAIFDSPBATDMTADer+1 --Brror (talk) 13:36, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  469. Oh, im so agree to this and like the humor! --Mr Misterio2 (talk) 00:50, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  470. Well, I think it's really suitable for me. (Even though I'm an inclusionist, though. ) Add one, please.--Alneth (talk) 17:00, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  471. this should be fun! —-Wingedspy
  472. Undarat (talk) 20:58, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  473. Joined because of the acronym, even though an inclusionist. Oshawott 12 ==()== Talk to me! 01:46, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  474. Ok;' Cortex128 (talk)
  475. I'll take one for the team, and pledge my life to the AWWDMBJAWGCAWAIFDSPBATDMTAD! Also, i'm the first member to join in 2019! I'll be sure to put that on my arch of triumph! Noble5034 (talk)08:36, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  476. I currently believe that I would benefit from changing forms into a person that participates in activities sponsored by and related to The Association of Wikipedians Who Dislike Making Broad Judgments About the Worthiness of a General Category of Article, and Who Are in Favor of the Deletion of Some Particularly Bad Articles, but That Doesn't Mean They Are Deletionists, I hereby pledge my allegiance and the allegiances of my descendants until the end of time to The Association of Wikipedians Who Dislike Making Broad Judgments About the Worthiness of a General Category of Article, and Who Are in Favor of the Deletion of Some Particularly Bad Articles, but That Doesn't Mean They Are Deletionists. FghytghjhnhY (talk) 04:09, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  477. More inclusionist than deletionist. Smallchief (talk) 18:06, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  478. I believe that AWWDMBJAWGCAWAIFDSPBATDMTAD is the place for me, on one hand you can't let an unsourced article about a corrugated iron roof of a shack be on Wikipedia, but articles that do fit notability criteria but are god-awful should be given a chance to improve. Also, I like the acronym KeeperOfThePeace (talk) 12:35, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  479. I think the Association of Wikipedians Who Dislike Making Broad Judgments About the Worthiness of a General Category of Article, and Who Are in Favor of the Deletion of Some Particularly Bad Articles, but That Doesn't Mean They Are Deletionists is just right, because I like to write articles on local history such as an historic theatre but not on the mole on the left bollock of Aunt Mabel's beagle. Clarinetcutie (talk) 16:53, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  480. The Association of Wikipedians Who Dislike Making Broad Judgments About the Worthiness of a General Category of Article, and Who Are in Favor of the Deletion of Some Particularly Bad Articles, but That Doesn't Mean They Are Deletionists sounds weirdly specific, but is in fact surprisingly inclusive. Insolent1 (talk) 13:07, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  481. Groiglery1217 (talk)
  482. I'm not sure if the title is descriptive enough...? --NearMiddayNight (Feel free to come talk with me). 12:24, 18 December 2019 (UTC) 201912180024Z[reply]
  483. Yes please! IamMattDavies (talk) 17:44, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  484. Just gonna edit a bit (talk) 23:02, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  485. I'm not sure whether 'AWWDMBJAWGCAWAIFDSPBATDMTAD' is an acronym or an initialism but I'm in either way. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 21:43, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  486. Est omnino difficile iudicare inclusionis meritum cuiusdam rei in encyclopædia cum ratio sciendi quid populi referat incerta sit, sed nihilominus aliquid encyclopædiam dedecet forever! [Reevak05] ([talk) 4:00, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
  487. yep --ApChrKey (talk) 17:01, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  488. arghh :)) Joris Darlington Quarshie (talk) 11:23, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  489. h. Gerald Waldo Luis (talk) 09:06, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  490. About time to combat the insane deletionists! I have been calling for this for +10 years! --Luka1184 (talk) 03:19, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  491. I think this is just a good philosophy for life. Birdn4t0r (talk) 23:52, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  492. Bwahaha this made me chuckle indeed... I wanna join this party train. Anybody here play chess?? Unrulyhair (talk) 14:28, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  493. y e s JJPMaster (talk) 12:29, 1 December 2020(UTC)
  494. Jeromeenriquez (talk)
  495. consider me a member of this elect group :) Yitzilitt (talk) 05:40, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  496. Luke081515 22:43, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  497. Kashmorwiki (talk) 17:40, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  498. --Tharun S Yadla (talk) 15:58, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  499. I am in--142.127.165.215 02:39, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  500. Joining this terrible group. Pink Saffron (talk) 15:50, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  501. Solo por ser el miembro #500 José Furtado (talk) 17:09, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  502. peepoPogClimbingTreeHard4House HYPERCLAP Bumpf (talk) 23:05, 10 May 2021 (UTC)Bumpf[reply]
  503. Finally, people who understand it. Slow claps all around.86legs (talk) 11:19, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  504. Is this where we sign up for the clinical tests on the benefits of a coffee IV? No? Okay, well, whatever it is count me in. --ARoseWolf 17:40, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  505. I, too, identify as chaotic neutral. --LordPeterII (talk) 13:07, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  506. Well, the name is quirky and members of this are rarer than admins so... --Elytrian (talk) 9:25, 6 July 2021 (IST)
  507. "Enzyklopädie (...) ein besonders umfangreiches Nachschlagewerk (...) ein umfangreiches Sachwörterbuch über alle Themen für eine breite Leserschaft" ("Enzyklopädie"; de:Wikipedia) --ThüringerChatte (talk) 17:49, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  508. I find the AWWDMBJAWGCAWAIFDSPBATDMTAD to be a very interesting group, yet I can still somehow relate to it. I'm in! Liamyangll (talk) 10:28, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  509. Im in Randoperson1 (talk) 00:05, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  510. Sounds like a good time, I'm all for it. EllieEcon (talk) 19:05, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  511. Its a long name, but its worth it. Elytrian (talk) 06:06, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  512. that's definitely me. --SHB2000 (talk | contibs) 11:09, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  513. fit for me. kann ich so vertreten. --M. Gimmerthal (talk) 15:21, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  514. I'm from viwiki Minh Ming (talk) 12:28, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  515. Azmi1995 15:23, 6 March 2022 (UTC) - Saya dukung dan saya sokong semua pandangan yang ada di sini kerana saya percaya bahawa persatuan ini merupakan persatuan yang boleh menyentuh jiwa ini[reply]
  516. Os iusti meditabitur sapientiam, et lingua eius loquetur iudicium. Beatus vir qui suffert tentationem, quoniam cum probatus fuerit accipiet coronam vitae. Jkudlick (talk) 18:52, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  517. Mismatched shoes (talk) 20:07, 8 March 2022 (UTC)-joining for the abreviation[reply]
  518. I find this pretty hilarious,Count me in! Cognent (talk) 03:01, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  519. Os iusti meditabitur sapientiam, et lingua eius loquetur iudicium. Beatus vir qui suffert tentationem, quoniam cum probatus fuerit accipiet coronam vitae. Some stuff doesn't belong on Wikipedia, 110%. Namethatisnotinuse (talk) 14:20, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  520. Another huge userbox, and it fits me perfectly! Bumpf (talk) 00:42, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  521. Not so sure if i'm doing this right, but count me in! Leeo pard kat (talk) 14:30, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  522. I came, I saw, I waffled. KevAvatar (talk) 18:49, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  523. Elbow macaroni. Herny32c (talk)
  524. JGNTHA (talk) 18:40, 6 August 2022 (UTC) - Nama yang panjang, namun artinya benar-benar sesuai dengan harapan saya dan harapannya semua orang yang bergabung ke bagian ini memang mendukung artikel kelayakan yang baik namun artikel yang kurang layak bisa diperbaiki ataupun dilakukan nominasi untuk dihapus.[reply]
  525. I'm here now too I guess...User:CarolingianCitizen ([User talk:CarolingianCitizen|talk])
  526. Couldn't miss out on this! Eejit43 (talk) 00:09, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  527. I've slways hoped there was a Wikipedia club with a long name!Justyouraveragelechuga (talk) 04:52, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  528. I have nothing to do so, I'm in! Randomperson43322 (talk) 19:24 30 January 2023 (UTC)
  529. I am indeed a wikipedian Who Dislikes Making Broad Judgments About the Worthiness of a General Category of Article, and Who is in Favor of the Deletion of Some Particularly Bad Articles, but That Doesn't Mean They Are A Deletionist, so I guess I'll join --Licks-rocks (talk) 15:59, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  530. Totally not joining for the abbreviation... Mashedpotatoes52 (User talk:Mashedpotatoes52) 18:39, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  531. Silikonz💬 02:14, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  532. If this isn't mentioned at my funeral then I'm not dying. -kgoodluck- (talk) 12:45, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  533. This sounds reasonable. ElectricAutumn (talk) 00:54, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  534. Yes – if n people want something there, so will n+1. Northernhenge (talk) 18:45, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  535. Alright, this group looks interesting, and I can totally relate as I am indeed, one who dislikes Making Broad Judgments About the Worthiness of a General Category of Article, and Who Is in Favor of the Deletion of Some Particularly Bad Articles, But That Doesn't Mean I Am A Deletionist, so count me in! Browhatwhyamihere (talk) 06:35, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  536. Don't Forget me! :)Tea4life (talk) 06:35, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  537. well this seems fun UpdateWindows (talk) 18:09, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  538. Count me in I like it. Jack4576 (talk) 08:33, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  539. Why is this on metawiki if it's in English Aaron Liu (talk) 00:41, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  540. Long live the Association of Wikipedians Who Dislike Making Broad Judgments About the Worthiness of a General Category of Article, and Who Are in Favor of the Deletion of Some Particularly Bad Articles, but That Doesn't Mean They Are Deletionists! // 🌶️Jalapeño🌶️ Don't click this link! 15:04, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  541. Love the short, concise name. HarmfulHurdle91
  542. Finally I have found everyone else who has seen the light! Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 00:47, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  543. Da bin ich dabei! Stephan Hense (talk) 11:03, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  544. Ah. Wonderful, wonderful. What a joyous occasion. SAMBOT2000xp (t alk) 13:17, 08 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  545. Present MicrobiologyMarcus (talk) 17:57, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  546. Did I forget to sign my name here? Yes. Spinixster (talk) 13:51, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  547. I´m gonna be here until an article is made on my fathers dissapearence. TheKrazedKat (talk) 4:08, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
  548. i will join Hi me bye (talk) 13:10, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  549. I will dedicate my life to this association narvstheworld 10:43, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  550. am joining :) - Spdc097 (talk) 23:54, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  551. Well, yes! Drdr150 (talk) 21:05, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  552. Proud member, --Ankermast (talk) 14:43, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  553. I forgot to add my name on list. I found this association a half year ago. So, I am one of you! Salazarov 06:04, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  554. That's very interesting. Umarxon III (talk) 15:04, 29 January 2024 (UTC).[reply]
  555. Totally want to join! MetaAlphaBeta (talk) 16:13, 11 February 2024 (UTC).[reply]
  556. This seems like the perfect association for me on Wikipedia - SpacePod9 (talk) 22:34, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  557. Sup fellas - Thewardenofhistory 22:11, 26 March 2024
  558. Hi, friends! ValeZh1987 (talk) 10:38, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  559. Alright, this group looks interesting! Allzhukov (talk) 16:28, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Association_of_Wikipedians_Who_Dislike_Making_Broad_Judgments_About_the_Worthiness_of_a_General_Category_of_Article,_and_Who_Are_in_Favor_of_the_Deletion_of_Some_Particularly_Bad_Articles,_but_That_Doesn%27t_Mean_They_Are_Deletionists/Members&oldid=26608730"