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

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki

Jump to: navigation, search

P social sciences.png

  1. 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)
  2. Oh look, here's my name again. Ashibaka 00:55, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  3. ‣ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ 03:52, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC) - hahaha...
  4. BrokenSegue 01:58, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)- why not?
  5. Gtrmp 02:20, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  6. Thanks Ashibaka for providing a "middle ground". Objective Researcher 05:11, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  7. 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)
  8. I disagree with proposed "common goals." Adraeus 13:47, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  9. 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)
  10. One of us! One of us! Stargat
  11. --CiaraBeth 17:52, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC) Yay! Finally found somewhere I fit.
  12. 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)
  13. Tatteredpaper | (talk) Very Nice.
  14. I don't join nothing -- count me in! -Rholton 05:55, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  15. Anything this wishy-washy is inherently worthy. IMeowbot 18:01, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  16. \Mike 20:20, 2005 Jan 25 (UTC) yeah, this is so me :)
  17. Aurea mediocritas. —Charles P. 19:26, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  18. This looks like it includes my general POV about stuff. Alphax 02:17, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC
  19. Ah, a club for me! Bratsche 03:14, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  20. Ah, yes. This fits me just fine. Can I get the motto on a bumper sticker? – ClockworkSoul 18:06, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  21. 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)
  22. Boffy b 21:45, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC) For great justice!
  23. After a great deal of consideration, I feel this association is the place for me. Thryduulf 10:21, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  24. As above. TAS 10:49, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  25. Sounds good to me. Revived 16:59, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  26. 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)
  27. Salvete, amici. Kia ora. Robin Patterson 00:46, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  28. Francesco
  29. iamorlando I wouldn't consider myself a member of this particular club but i've listed myself here anyways
  30. Taco Deposit
  31. --Jondel 09:02, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)-
  32. Longwinded names strike such a chord in me. *tear* --Addesso 21:36, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  33. DoubleBlue (Talk) 21:29, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
  34. *Kat* Hey, now this is my sort of association.
  35. Node ue 18:17, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
  36. Mindspillage 02:52, 20 May 2005 (UTC) Not only true, but I adore the name.
  37. 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.
  38. 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)
  39. You know what you doing. Pufferfish101 02:14, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  40. I love the name of this group. It fits me perfectly. Mred64 15:47, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  41. Laura Scudder | Talk 21:30, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  42. Yay, a club for me! Firestorm 19:09, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  43. 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)
  44.  :Can't be any worse then most real political parties :D --Phroziac (talk) 18:00, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  45.  :-) Dan100 08:20, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  46. user:zanimum
  47. Bcat (talk) 17:19, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  48. Omegatron
  49. This is my kind of POV. <>Who?¿? 09:09, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
  50. TheMidnighters 18:27, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
  51. Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) I join but cannot be held accountable on account of clinical insanity.
  52. Get_It 02:40, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
  53. The wub 09:14, 14 July 2005 (UTC) yay! \(^o^)/
  54. Yay for the name - short and succinct, just as I like it... -- Marcika 15:39, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
  55. 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)
  56. 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)
  57. Huzzah! User:Teentitans i need to start logging in...
  58. Ah, suitably vague... Yes! Flowerparty 14:41, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
  59. Blockinblox 15:47, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
  60. 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".
  61. LoopZilla 20:23, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
  62. Sjakkalle 13:17, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
  63. Phase2 of Wikipedianism now beckons.Phase1 11:32, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
  64. 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)
  65. Following the crowd. --BenKovitz 17:39, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
  66. Cmadler 13:09, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  67. I like... Kwekubo 23:08, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  68. I'm so far in it's not funny. --Apyule 00:38, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
  69. Count me in. — Flag of Austria.png ナイトスタリオン ㇳ–ㇰ — 11:32, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
  70. Include me in. --GraemeL 15:12, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
  71. 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)
  72. 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)
  73. Eric's penguin. Might as well. 6 October 2005
  74. Jrquinlisk 06:47, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
  75. --Gaff 21:14, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  76. Mgroetan 21:08, 23 October 2005
  77. Karmafist 04:51, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
  78. TantalumTelluride 01:14, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  79. Psy guy 23:45, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
  80. --Violingirl 20:58, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
  81. Wikipedia isn't paper, but it isn't a junkyard either. -Mysekurity 07:19, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
  82. User:Pydos Great idea, just hope i can say the name in one breath.
  83. Phoenix-forgotten
  84. Jaxl 03:02, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
  85. What the heck. Count me in! Shmuel 22:33, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
  86. Hey, Ill join too!! — Moe ε 23:39, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
  87. Shiny button! I'm in, because I'm generally inclusionist, except when the articles are patent nonsense. Kerowyn 01:15, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  88. OwenX 21:48, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  89. 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.
  90. If I'm a mergist, then I'm probably one of this group too. Jokermage 04:12, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
  91. Ignus 22:22, 10 December 2005 (UTC) Taking a stand for not taking a stand.
  92. This is the best group I've seen on Wiki! Count me in! D-Rock 13:50, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
  93. 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)
  94. I'll be honest: I just wanted that cool, really long graphic. Antifamilymang
  95. 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)
  96. I'm in --Berney 18:51, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  97. Flarn2005 20:46, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
  98. Balance is key. --BenjaminTsai 09:31, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
  99. --JAranda | watz sup 21:48, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
  100. --Frank Schulenburg 19:48, 30 December 2005 (UTC) (bekehrter ehemaliger Inklusionist). Greetings to Magadan.
  101. Sean
  102. Matt Yeager 04:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  103. Arviragus 06:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  104.  :Now you're #149. :) Ashibaka 06:54, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  105. —Locke Cole • t • c 08:33, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  106.  : Your link was to metawiki, I corrected it to go to english wikipedia --Rdoger6424 23:59, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  107.  :: Your link was invalid, I corrected it to go to an actual page --Timrem 02:51, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  108. I'm just here for the acronym and the free coffee. Adrian 06:22, 17 January 2006 (UTC) (*)
  109. I'm here for the userbox. Vsion 06:16, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  110. Mushroom 07:09, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  111. 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)
  112. Leifern is in and thinks deletionists are self-righteous prigs who probably can't take a joke either.
  113. im with you guys BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard
  114. Patterson mdash; Everyday the internet keeps getting better and better.
  115. Some pages just don't belong in an encyclopedia. -Chairman S. 07:20, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  116. --Lilja ♫ 22:18, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  117. 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)
  118. --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)
  119. I thoroughly agree.--DakotaKahn 04:49, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
  120. 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.
  121. --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.
  122. Branddobbe 01:44, 19 February 2006 (UTC) Delicious.
  123. Arundhati bakshi 07:16, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  124. Cymsdale 11:54, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  125. Haza-w 12:27, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
  126. Dancraggs 17:16, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
  127. --Nomader 04:49, 4 March 2006 (UTC) - finally, middle ground I can stand on. With a cool graphic.
  128. DanielDemaret 13:58, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  129. Zachjonse4--Zachjones4 18:18, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
  130. Seems like a reasonable thing to do. Mattopaedia 04:15, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
  131. This could easily be the Association of Relativist Wikipedians. Sign me up. Nuge 11:11, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
  132. Why not. Do they make acronyms for acronyms? Antonrojo 14:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
  133. Delete draconian deletion policies! Feezo
  134. Ambassador from the Neutral Planet's user name is ElementalChromium 01:04, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  135. Viva Poulpy ! ~Pyb 18:42, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  136. Jessymac 18:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC) It's not my place to judge, but there's some stuff we could live without.
  137. Hooray for this association! — ßottesiηi (talk) 00:56, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
  138. I like long names.-Gangsta-Easter-Bunny 12:32, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  139. I like long names too and this is just a better fit than strict deletionism. --Strothra 01:39, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  140. 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)
  141. -- kh80 21:44, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
  142. Yay, I'm a member of the Association of Wikipedians who dislike making broad judgements about *zzzzzzz* TrianaC 03:14, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
  143. 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)
  144. user: f 22 Rice is nice but its at a price. logie!
  145. Goldom 05:40, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
  146. I've always wanted to be in a club with a really long name Pirate Flag of Rack Rackham.svg Hamish (Talk) 12:57, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
  147. PixVonn 19:47, 7 July 2006 (UTC) until something convinces me other wise, I am down with the ethos of this assoc.
  148. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ
  149. Itm sorry, asscociation of drunk ranting wikipedians? this is great!--Musaabdulrashid 10:07, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  150. ...--Mac Wanter 01:32, 20 July 2006 (UTC)--
  151. Your program is a little sweeping and one-sided, but I join despite my reservations. --Celithemis 13:00, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  152. Some things aren't for an Encyclopedia. Everything else shall be here. Locoluis 22:40, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  153. Oscar . 05:22, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  154. --Irmgard 17:48, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  155. --Davidlud 19:01, 29 August 2006 (UTC) :-)
  156. I like things with long names --Marblewonder 20:03, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
  157. weirdoactor 21:30, 3 November 2006 (UTC) - I'm not joining. I'm just here for the snacks. There...are snacks, yes?
  158. Vlad 13:07, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
  159. mzlla 15:50, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
  160. --Howrealisreal 01:40, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
  161. Hooah. Dev920 10:57, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
  162. 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)
  163. I really don't wanna' belong to anything willing to accept me as a member
  164. aaww, so cute! How can I not join? Trubadurix 20:02, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  165. 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)
  166. Heisenberg for Wikipedians. --Mwongozi 23:14, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
  167. AHAHA! I have joined now! Good for me. Great motto and goal and stuff. doughmuffins|talk to me!
  168. 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)
  169. Az1568 03:01, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  170. Mmoneypenny 07:53, 10 December 2006 (UTC) Last (for now) but hopefully not least.
  171. Albertsab@cawiki 14:08, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  172. Greeves 02:59, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
  173. 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
  174. Mwikiaddict Most definitely.
  175. 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)
  176. Thunderhead herby notes his association with the AWWDMBJAWGCAWAIFDSPBATDMTAD. Right. Okay. Thunderhead 06:16, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  177. 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.
  178. User:Tomtom9041 02:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC) -- Gotta love it. Alot. And I wholeheartedly agree.
  179. Mine, on the other hand, will be at the top forever! Ahahaha! Ahahahahaha! Ruaraidh-dobson 20:30, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  180. 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).
  181. I'm on top! Deal with it! --Salocin 08:57, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
  182. No I'm on top because I have the mighty word of FNORD! Whispering 03:05, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
  183. No, Seahen, you can't be at the top, because I am! (SNORK!) Akcarver 19:25, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
  184. 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)
  185. Oh, oh, me too! J.smith 00:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
  186. Wouldn't it suck if you had to write a paper about this group? Nishkid64 00:40, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
  187. Wow what a long list... --Majorly 00:43, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
  188. 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...
  189. Jakslev 17:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
  190. A firm believer. Jsymmetry 19:23, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
  191. I place absolute trust in a group with such firm beliefs. Alton 05:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  192. Just the kind of association I wanted in Wikipedia! Pi72 09:57, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  193. Wow, Im 327 in line. wonder what i get at the end... chickenfeed9
  194. 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)
  195. 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)
  196. Finally, a straightforward philosphy. Something I get get my hands on. --Fbv65edel 02:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
  197. This group definitely fits me. I will be here to stay --Japanimation14 19:03 , 20 February 2007 (EST)
  198. I believe in the philosophy of this project and would like to promote this way of thinking. --Leon2323 20:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
  199. I have total faith in this highly considered and strongly principled philosophy. DWaterson 19:02, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
  200. I believe descression is needed when choosing what to delete in Wikipedia. Captain panda 03:22, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
  201. 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)
  202. 'Have patience with everything unresolved and try to love the questions themselves.' Rainer Maria Rilke.--Ziji 23:58, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  203. 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)
  204. This describe me prefectly April Is Really Fooled 15:19, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
  205. Does this mean I'm wishy-washy? Count me in anyway, I think. Shuttlebug 21:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
  206. 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)
  207. How many WWDMBJAWGCAWAIFDSPBATDMTD's we got around here, anyway? YO! --DragonHawk 11:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  208. I don't know, but here's one more: Oadams 23:48, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  209. 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)
  210. 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)
  211. couldn't agree with the ethos of AWWDMBJAWGCAWAIFDSPBATDMTD more, I'm so in. SemperFideliS81 01:58, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  212. mmmmmmm AWWDMBJAWGCAWAIFDSPBATDMTD.... Jamesontai 13:53, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
  213. LaraLove 05:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
  214. Thewinchester Because all forms of corpcruft are just plain dreadful and need to be dealt with quickly, if by reliable sources or by deletion.
  215. 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)
  216. zeke72791
  217. Chr.K. Mostly harmless.
  218. User:Kinkijui KNK! >—[[]]—<
  219. NeoNerd 22:01, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
  220. 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)
  221. Been waitin' a long time to do this! Angular 19:22, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
  222. Overly verbose and indecisive? The perfect association for me!! -Kotra 23:15, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
  223. It's scary how much this describes me. J-stan 00:26, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
  224. Ditto J-stan.  $PЯINGεrαgђ 
  225. 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)
  226. Sign me up! --Willbyr 17:23, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
  227. I'm Home! Marcus Cyron 19:48, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
  228. I'm joining! Rycr 09:17, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
  229. Oh if this existed in real life ! ℒibrarian2 20:49, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
  230. Kotra said it best. 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)
  231. Flag of Mexico.svgHsilamot (Insultos | Contribuciones) 21:13, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
  232. Home is, where reason is. Heart is, where compromise exists. --Mghamburg 13:02, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
  233. 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)
  234. Tkasmai 21:29, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
  235. Fattyjwoods 01:08, 1 December 2007 (UTC) man whats up with the long name? I wanna joinFattyjwoods 01:08, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
  236. bibliomaniac15 23:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  237. Ornithopter 09:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  238. Wisdom89 Wisdom89 06:43, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
  239. 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)
  240. oooooooooooooh, Harland1 16:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
  241. --MisterWiki 04:27, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  242. Max.diems (note: name change request entered for change to MaxHarmony)
  243. Aeetlrsk 23:53, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  244. I hate deletionists, and I'm a confirmed inclusionist, but somethings need to be deleted. TorstenGuise 19:20, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
  245. broadway4life155 I belive that articles need to be improved not deleted, but sometimes some pages are just too far beyond help.
  246. Circumspection and moderate equivocation have much to recommend them. --Sfmammamia 22:28, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
  247. —La Pianista (T•C) 16:46, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  248. 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)
  249. Wow. I can't express my Wiki sentiments in any fewer words. Joelster 08:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  250. --Bennettjm 01:56, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
  251. This almost perfectly states my sentiments. +me J.delanoygabsadds 06:03, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  252. A wonderful philosophy. Nazgul533 01:00, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  253. Tyciol 17:32, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
  254. Protonk 05:23, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
  255. I may have some problems with the translation from the Latin Motto, But... Excellent viewpoint, one which I share, BrianKnez
  256. 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)
  257. —CyclonenimT@lk? 18:31, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
  258. Preschooler.at.heart 00:25, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
  259. ∞Fr33kmantalk APW 15:45, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
  260. I'm in, I s'pose. Down with generalisations! --Ω 22:16, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
  261. Tealwisp 20:11, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
  262. evil0sheep 00:04, 07 November 2008 (UTC)
  263. Interesting name. I'll join. Hi878 23:31, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
  264. This is valid and humorous - perfect! --Cmputer 17:19, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
  265. Count me in...this is very interesting. Willking1979 00:37, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
  266. --Cerejota 04:52, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
  267. I...I had no idea there were other's like me...Lot49a 01:38, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
  268. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 16:27, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
  269. Whoo-hoo! PieMan.EXE 22:37, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
  270. I'm in. All generalizations suck. Wikipedia should be useful! Jnnnnn 05:54, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
  271. –Juliancolton (talk) 00:39, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
  272. Yes. Sign me up. Razorflame 00:40, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
  273. Include me. Deconstructhis 16:52, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
  274. Sounds like a good idea Cabe6403 19:09, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
  275. 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)
  276. This looks like the only reasonable middle ground between deletionism and inclusionism. Except maybe transwikism. Psbsub 02:00, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
  277. 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)
  278. The New Mikemoral 01:16, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
  279. 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)
  280. I'm in this boat. Count me in! T3chl0v3r 22:14, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
  281. Deletionists and inclusionists - a plague on both their houses. Fences and windows 13:30, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
  282. AWWDMBJAWGCAWAIFDSPBATDMTDGRRRR! kthxbai Kwiki 04:49, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
  283. Awesome! It says what it means and it means what it says! HJ Mitchell 13:48, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
  284. Catchy. I like it. Chzz 04:58, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
  285. I fixed the numbers because someone deleted a #. Thank me later. Ollie Garkey 14:56, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
  286. Now I just need to figure out how to cram all this onto a button.CABridges 18:34, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
  287. Yowuza 16:07, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
  288. Flashdornfeld 17:52, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
  289. Its all good :) Jenuk1985 23:22, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  290. --Courtlandsmith 16:59, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
  291. Jacek FH 13:29, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
  292. Oops, looks like I really pressed the 'Save' button. --Goutamkhandelwal 13:11, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
  293. Add me. --Javert 00:35, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
  294. Recursively neutral, but not neutrally recursive. Vicenarian 17:46, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
  295. Awesome word even more awesome goals. Jamesofur 06:57, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
  296. 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)
  297. 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)

  1. 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)
  2. Yes. This. User:Quasirandom on Wikipedia, without an account here. 16:34, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
  3. With such a simple name, how could I possibly not join... -- Houghster 16:05, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
  4. Je n'ai pas tout compris mais j'ai bien ri quand même ! EPolti 08:26, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
  5. Awesome, I'm in!--Jakkinx 21:02, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
  6. Finally, the moderates. Fetchcomms 01:06, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
  7. Now this is my kind of association! Killer Magikarp 03:22, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
  8. • Anakin101 16:29, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
  9. 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)
Retrieved from "http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/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"