Jump to content

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 just had too. Come on. Blackmamba31248
  2. I am in Younes Zarou (talk) 08:50, 1 August 2021 (UTC)reply
  3. Count me in 25songa (talk) 01:13, 30 March 2018 (UTC)reply
  4. Möp! --Torben Friedrich (talk) 17:52, 24 October 2015 (UTC)reply
  5. Count me in. Guardian-of-Lost-Scrolls (talk) 14:51, 1 September 2015 (UTC)reply
  6. I just had to join this because of the super-long name. Ngeaup (talk) 16:38, 16 January 2015 (UTC)reply
  7. I am a new member here now ! Shrikanthv (talk) 14:38, 17 December 2014 (UTC)reply
  8. I will delete only those who need deletion- Scientific Alan 2 (talk) 16:14, 18 June 2012 (UTC)reply
  9. Ha, I am first. Algamicagrat (talk) 21:41, 15 March 2012 (UTC)reply
  10. I Love You, always your mate. Thewine 18:10, 10 January 2012 (UTC)reply
  11. Articles that are really bad need to be deleted (No deletionism) Thank you.Cupstacker
  12. Medio tutissimus ibis. The enemy of the good is the perfect. Patronanejo 11:02, 10 November 2011 (UTC)reply
  13. Judgement is wrong.Onyx321 (Wikipedia page)
  14. 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
  15. 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
  16. Oh look, here's my name again. Ashibaka 00:55, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  17. ‣ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ 03:52, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC) - hahaha...
  18. BrokenSegue 01:58, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)- why not?
  19. Gtrmp 02:20, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  20. Thanks Ashibaka for providing a "middle ground". Objective Researcher 05:11, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  21. 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)
  22. I disagree with proposed "common goals." Adraeus 13:47, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  23. 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)
  24. One of us! One of us! Stargat
  25. --CiaraBeth 17:52, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC) Yay! Finally found somewhere I fit.
  26. 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)
  27. Tatteredpaper | (talk) Very Nice.
  28. I don't join nothing -- count me in! -Rholton 05:55, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  29. Anything this wishy-washy is inherently worthy. IMeowbot 18:01, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  30. \Mike 20:20, 2005 Jan 25 (UTC) yeah, this is so me :)
  31. Aurea mediocritas. —Charles P. 19:26, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  32. This looks like it includes my general POV about stuff. Alphax 02:17, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC
  33. Ah, a club for me! Bratsche 03:14, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  34. Ah, yes. This fits me just fine. Can I get the motto on a bumper sticker? – ClockworkSoul 18:06, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  35. 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)
  36. Boffy b 21:45, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC) For great justice!
  37. After a great deal of consideration, I feel this association is the place for me. Thryduulf 10:21, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  38. As above. TAS 10:49, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  39. Sounds good to me. Revived 16:59, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  40. 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)
  41. Salvete, amici. Kia ora. Robin Patterson 00:46, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  42. Francesco
  43. iamorlando I wouldn't consider myself a member of this particular club but i've listed myself here anyways
  44. Taco Deposit
  45. --Jondel 09:02, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)-
  46. Longwinded names strike such a chord in me. *tear* --Addesso 21:36, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  47. DoubleBlue (Talk) 21:29, 8 May 2005 (UTC)reply
  48. *Kat* Hey, now this is my sort of association.
  49. ecallow, official Health & Safety adviser of the association.
  50. Node ue 18:17, 17 May 2005 (UTC)reply
  51. Mindspillage 02:52, 20 May 2005 (UTC) Not only true, but I adore the name.reply
  52. 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
  53. 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)
  54. You know what you doing. Pufferfish101 02:14, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  55. I love the name of this group. It fits me perfectly. Mred64 15:47, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  56. Laura Scudder | Talk 21:30, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  57. Yay, a club for me! Firestorm 19:09, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  58. 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)
  59. :Can't be any worse then most real political parties :D --Phroziac (talk) 18:00, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  60. :-) Dan100 08:20, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  61. user:zanimum
  62. Bcat (talk) 17:19, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  63. Omegatron
  64. This is my kind of POV. <>Who[[:w:en:User%20talk:Who<font|color=#00Ff00>?¿?]] 09:09, 10 July 2005 (UTC)reply
  65. TheMidnighters 18:27, 11 July 2005 (UTC)reply
  66. Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) I join but cannot be held accountable on account of clinical insanity.
  67. Get_It 02:40, 14 July 2005 (UTC)reply
  68. The wub 09:14, 14 July 2005 (UTC) yay! \(^o^)/reply
  69. Yay for the name - short and succinct, just as I like it... -- Marcika 15:39, 25 July 2005 (UTC)reply
  70. 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
  71. 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
  72. Huzzah! User:Teentitans i need to start logging in...
  73. Ah, suitably vague... Yes! Flowerparty 14:41, 27 August 2005 (UTC)reply
  74. Blockinblox 15:47, 27 August 2005 (UTC)reply
  75. 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".
  76. LoopZilla 20:23, 28 August 2005 (UTC)reply
  77. Sjakkalle 13:17, 31 August 2005 (UTC)reply
  78. Phase2 of Wikipedianism now beckons.Phase1 11:32, 3 September 2005 (UTC)reply
  79. 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
  80. Following the crowd. --BenKovitz 17:39, 13 September 2005 (UTC)reply
  81. Cmadler 13:09, 23 September 2005 (UTC)reply
  82. I like... Kwekubo 23:08, 23 September 2005 (UTC)reply
  83. I'm so far in it's not funny. --Apyule 00:38, 27 September 2005 (UTC)reply
  84. Count me in. — ナイトスタリオン ㇳ–ㇰ — 11:32, 27 September 2005 (UTC)reply
  85. Include me in. --GraemeL 15:12, 28 September 2005 (UTC)reply
  86. 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
  87. 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
  88. Eric's penguin. Might as well. 6 October 2005
  89. Jrquinlisk 06:47, 12 October 2005 (UTC)reply
  90. --Gaff 21:14, 15 October 2005 (UTC)reply
  91. Mgroetan 21:08, 23 October 2005
  92. Karmafist 04:51, 26 October 2005 (UTC)reply
  93. TantalumTelluride 01:14, 28 October 2005 (UTC)reply
  94. Psy guy 23:45, 30 October 2005 (UTC)reply
  95. --Violingirl 20:58, 4 November 2005 (UTC)reply
  96. Wikipedia isn't paper, but it isn't a junkyard either. -Mysekurity 07:19, 5 November 2005 (UTC)reply
  97. User:Pydos Great idea, just hope i can say the name in one breath.
  98. Phoenix-forgotten
  99. Jaxl 03:02, 9 November 2005 (UTC)reply
  100. What the heck. Count me in! Shmuel 22:33, 25 November 2005 (UTC)reply
  101. Hey, Ill join too!! — Moe ε 23:39, 27 November 2005 (UTC)reply
  102. 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
  103. OwenX 21:48, 1 December 2005 (UTC)reply
  104. 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
  105. If I'm a mergist, then I'm probably one of this group too. Jokermage 04:12, 7 December 2005 (UTC)reply
  106. Ignus 22:22, 10 December 2005 (UTC) Taking a stand for not taking a stand.reply
  107. This is the best group I've seen on Wiki! Count me in! D-Rock 13:50, 13 December 2005 (UTC)reply
  108. 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
  109. I'll be honest: I just wanted that cool, really long graphic. Antifamilymang
  110. 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
  111. I'm in --Berney 18:51, 16 December 2005 (UTC)reply
  112. Flarn2005 20:46, 24 December 2005 (UTC)reply
  113. Balance is key. --BenjaminTsai 09:31, 28 December 2005 (UTC)reply
  114. --JAranda | watz sup 21:48, 28 December 2005 (UTC)reply
  115. --Frank Schulenburg 19:48, 30 December 2005 (UTC) (bekehrter ehemaliger Inklusionist). Greetings to Magadan.reply
  116. Sean
  117. Matt Yeager 04:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC)reply
  118. Arviragus 06:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)reply
  119. :Now you're #149. :) Ashibaka 06:54, 15 January 2006 (UTC)reply
  120. —Locke Cole • t • c 08:33, 15 January 2006 (UTC)reply
  121. : Your link was to metawiki, I corrected it to go to english wikipedia --Rdoger6424 23:59, 1 February 2006 (UTC)reply
  122. :: Your link was invalid, I corrected it to go to an actual page --Timrem 02:51, 23 May 2006 (UTC)reply
  123. I'm just here for the acronym and the free coffee. Adrian 06:22, 17 January 2006 (UTC) (*)reply
  124. I'm here for the userbox. Vsion 06:16, 18 January 2006 (UTC)reply
  125. Mushroom 07:09, 20 January 2006 (UTC)reply
  126. 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
  127. Leifern is in and thinks deletionists are self-righteous prigs who probably can't take a joke either.
  128. im with you guys BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard
  129. Patterson mdash; Everyday the internet keeps getting better and better.
  130. Some pages just don't belong in an encyclopedia. -Chairman S. 07:20, 26 January 2006 (UTC)reply
  131. --Lilja ♫ 22:18, 27 January 2006 (UTC)reply
  132. 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
  133. --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
  134. I thoroughly agree.--DakotaKahn 04:49, 9 February 2006 (UTC)reply
  135. 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
  136. --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
  137. Branddobbe 01:44, 19 February 2006 (UTC) Delicious.reply
  138. Arundhati bakshi 07:16, 21 February 2006 (UTC)reply
  139. Cymsdale 11:54, 23 February 2006 (UTC)reply
  140. Haza-w 12:27, 26 February 2006 (UTC)reply
  141. Dancraggs 17:16, 26 February 2006 (UTC)reply
  142. --Nomader 04:49, 4 March 2006 (UTC) - finally, middle ground I can stand on. With a cool graphic.reply
  143. DanielDemaret 13:58, 5 March 2006 (UTC)reply
  144. Zachjonse4--Zachjones4 18:18, 19 March 2006 (UTC)reply
  145. Seems like a reasonable thing to do. Mattopaedia 04:15, 2 April 2006 (UTC)reply
  146. This could easily be the Association of Relativist Wikipedians. Sign me up. Nuge 11:11, 23 April 2006 (UTC)reply
  147. Why not. Do they make acronyms for acronyms? Antonrojo 14:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC)reply
  148. Delete draconian deletion policies! Feezo
  149. Ambassador from the Neutral Planet's user name is ElementalChromium 01:04, 11 May 2006 (UTC)reply
  150. Viva Poulpy ! ~Pyb 18:42, 11 May 2006 (UTC)reply
  151. Jessymac 18:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC) It's not my place to judge, but there's some stuff we could live without.reply
  152. Hooray for this association! — ßottesiηi (talk) 00:56, 2 June 2006 (UTC)reply
  153. I like long names.-Gangsta-Easter-Bunny 12:32, 13 June 2006 (UTC)reply
  154. I like long names too and this is just a better fit than strict deletionism. --Strothra 01:39, 15 June 2006 (UTC)reply
  155. 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
  156. -- kh80 21:44, 17 June 2006 (UTC)reply
  157. 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
  158. 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
  159. user: f 22 Rice is nice but its at a price. logie!
  160. Goldom 05:40, 1 July 2006 (UTC)reply
  161. I've always wanted to be in a club with a really long name Hamish (Talk) 12:57, 1 July 2006 (UTC)reply
  162. PixVonn 19:47, 7 July 2006 (UTC) until something convinces me other wise, I am down with the ethos of this assoc.reply
  163. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ
  164. Itm sorry, asscociation of drunk ranting wikipedians? this is great!--Musaabdulrashid 10:07, 18 July 2006 (UTC)reply
  165. ...--Mac Wanter 01:32, 20 July 2006 (UTC)--reply
  166. Your program is a little sweeping and one-sided, but I join despite my reservations. --Celithemis 13:00, 3 August 2006 (UTC)reply
  167. Some things aren't for an Encyclopedia. Everything else shall be here. Locoluis 22:40, 10 August 2006 (UTC)reply
  168. Oscar . 05:22, 11 August 2006 (UTC)reply
  169. --Irmgard 17:48, 20 August 2006 (UTC)reply
  170. --Davidlud 19:01, 29 August 2006 (UTC) :-)reply
  171. I like things with long names --Marblewonder 20:03, 4 September 2006 (UTC)reply
  172. weirdoactor 21:30, 3 November 2006 (UTC) - I'm not joining. I'm just here for the snacks. There...are snacks, yes?reply
  173. Vlad 13:07, 6 November 2006 (UTC)reply
  174. mzlla 15:50, 7 November 2006 (UTC)reply
  175. --Howrealisreal 01:40, 10 November 2006 (UTC)reply
  176. Hooah. Dev920 10:57, 10 November 2006 (UTC)reply
  177. 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
  178. I really don't wanna' belong to anything willing to accept me as a member
  179. aaww, so cute! How can I not join? Trubadurix 20:02, 19 November 2006 (UTC)reply
  180. 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)
  181. Heisenberg for Wikipedians. --Mwongozi 23:14, 24 November 2006 (UTC)reply
  182. AHAHA! I have joined now! Good for me. Great motto and goal and stuff. doughmuffins|talk to me!
  183. 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
  184. Az1568 03:01, 9 December 2006 (UTC)reply
  185. Mmoneypenny 07:53, 10 December 2006 (UTC) Last (for now) but hopefully not least.reply
  186. Albertsab@cawiki 14:08, 10 December 2006 (UTC)reply
  187. Greeves 02:59, 16 December 2006 (UTC)reply
  188. 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, Mathmoreply
  189. Mwikiaddict Most definitely.
  190. 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
  191. Thunderhead herby notes his association with the AWWDMBJAWGCAWAIFDSPBATDMTAD. Right. Okay. Thunderhead 06:16, 2 January 2007 (UTC)reply
  192. 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
  193. User:Tomtom9041 02:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC) -- Gotta love it. Alot. And I wholeheartedly agree.reply
  194. Mine, on the other hand, will be at the top forever! Ahahaha! Ahahahahaha! Ruaraidh-dobson 20:30, 9 August 2006 (UTC)reply
  195. 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
  196. I'm on top! Deal with it! --Salocin 08:57, 1 July 2006 (UTC)reply
  197. No I'm on top because I have the mighty word of FNORD! Whispering 03:05, 17 June 2006 (UTC)reply
  198. No, Seahen, you can't be at the top, because I am! (SNORK!) Akcarver 19:25, 21 May 2006 (UTC)reply
  199. 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
  200. Oh, oh, me too! J.smith 00:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC)reply
  201. Wouldn't it suck if you had to write a paper about this group? Nishkid64 00:40, 16 January 2007 (UTC)reply
  202. Wow what a long list... --Majorly 00:43, 16 January 2007 (UTC)reply
  203. 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
  204. Jakslev 17:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)reply
  205. A firm believer. Jsymmetry 19:23, 26 January 2007 (UTC)reply
  206. I place absolute trust in a group with such firm beliefs. Alton 05:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC)reply
  207. Just the kind of association I wanted in Wikipedia! Pi72 09:57, 2 February 2007 (UTC)reply
  208. Wow, Im 327 in line. wonder what i get at the end... chickenfeed9
  209. 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
  210. 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
  211. Finally, a straightforward philosphy. Something I get get my hands on. --Fbv65edel 02:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)reply
  212. This group definitely fits me. I will be here to stay --Japanimation14 19:03 , 20 February 2007 (EST)
  213. 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
  214. I have total faith in this highly considered and strongly principled philosophy. DWaterson 19:02, 26 February 2007 (UTC)reply
  215. I believe descression is needed when choosing what to delete in Wikipedia. Captain panda 03:22, 3 March 2007 (UTC)reply
  216. 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
  217. 'Have patience with everything unresolved and try to love the questions themselves.' Rainer Maria Rilke.--Ziji 23:58, 14 March 2007 (UTC)reply
  218. 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
  219. This describe me prefectly April Is Really Fooled 15:19, 24 March 2007 (UTC)reply
  220. Does this mean I'm wishy-washy? Count me in anyway, I think. Shuttlebug 21:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)reply
  221. 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
  222. How many WWDMBJAWGCAWAIFDSPBATDMTD's we got around here, anyway? YO! --DragonHawk 11:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)reply
  223. I don't know, but here's one more: Oadams 23:48, 6 April 2007 (UTC)reply
  224. 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
  225. 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
  226. couldn't agree with the ethos of AWWDMBJAWGCAWAIFDSPBATDMTD more, I'm so in. SemperFideliS81 01:58, 25 April 2007 (UTC)reply
  227. mmmmmmm AWWDMBJAWGCAWAIFDSPBATDMTD.... Jamesontai 13:53, 27 April 2007 (UTC)reply
  228. LaraLove 05:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)reply
  229. Thewinchester Because all forms of corpcruft are just plain dreadful and need to be dealt with quickly, if by reliable sources or by deletion.
  230. 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)
  231. zeke72791
  232. Chr.K. Mostly harmless.
  233. User:Kinkijui KNK! >—[[]]—<
  234. NeoNerd 22:01, 29 June 2007 (UTC)reply
  235. 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
  236. Been waitin' a long time to do this! Angular 19:22, 8 July 2007 (UTC)reply
  237. Overly verbose and indecisive? The perfect association for me!! -Kotra 23:15, 19 July 2007 (UTC)reply
  238. It's scary how much this describes me. J-stan 00:26, 22 July 2007 (UTC)reply
  239. Ditto J-stan.  $PЯINGεrαgђ 
  240. 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
  241. Sign me up! --Willbyr 17:23, 21 August 2007 (UTC)reply
  242. I'm Home! Marcus Cyron 19:48, 21 August 2007 (UTC)reply
  243. I'm joining! Rycr 09:17, 23 August 2007 (UTC)reply
  244. Oh if this existed in real life ! ℒibrarian2 20:49, 25 August 2007 (UTC)reply
  245. Kotra said it b/sup> 07:00, 7 August 2006 (UTC).
  246. I'm on top! Deal with it! --Salocin 08:57, 1 July 2006 (UTC)reply
  247. No I'm on top because I have the mighty word of FNORD! Whispering 03:05, 17 June 2006 (UTC)reply
  248. No, Seahen, you can't be at the top, because I am! (SNORK!) Akcarver 19:25, 21 May 2006 (UTC)reply
  249. 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
  250. Oh, oh, me too! J.smith 00:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC)reply
  251. Wouldn't it suck if you had to write a paper about this group? Nishkid64 00:40, 16 January 2007 (UTC)reply
  252. Wow what a long list... --Majorly 00:43, 16 January 2007 (UTC)reply
  253. 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
  254. Jakslev 17:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)reply
  255. A firm believer. Jsymmetry 19:23, 26 January 2007 (UTC)reply
  256. I place absolute trust in a group with such firm beliefs. Alton 05:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC)reply
  257. Just the kind of association I wanted in Wikipedia! Pi72 09:57, 2 February 2007 (UTC)reply
  258. Wow, Im 327 in line. wonder what i get at the end... chickenfeed9
  259. 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
  260. Hsilamot (Insultos | Contribuciones) 21:13, 14 September 2007 (UTC)reply
  261. Home is, where reason is. Heart is, where compromise exists. --Mghamburg 13:02, 30 September 2007 (UTC)reply
  262. 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
  263. Tkasmai 21:29, 12 November 2007 (UTC)reply
  264. Fattyjwoods 01:08, 1 December 2007 (UTC) man whats up with the long name? I wanna joinFattyjwoods 01:08, 1 December 2007 (UTC)reply
  265. bibliomaniac15 23:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)reply
  266. Ornithopter 09:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC)reply
  267. Wisdom89 Wisdom89 06:43, 13 December 2007 (UTC)reply
  268. 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
  269. oooooooooooooh, Harland1 16:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)reply
  270. --MisterWiki 04:27, 26 January 2008 (UTC)reply
  271. Max.diems (note: name change request entered for change to MaxHarmony)
  272. Aeetlrsk 23:53, 4 February 2008 (UTC)reply
  273. I hate deletionists, and I'm a confirmed inclusionist, but somethings need to be deleted. TorstenGuise 19:20, 22 February 2008 (UTC)reply
  274. broadway4life155 I belive that articles need to be improved not deleted, but sometimes some pages are just too far beyond help.
  275. Circumspection and moderate equivocation have much to recommend them. --Sfmammamia 22:28, 8 March 2008 (UTC)reply
  276. —La Pianista (T•C) 16:46, 7 April 2008 (UTC)reply
  277. 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
  278. Wow. I can't express my Wiki sentiments in any fewer words. Joelster 08:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)reply
  279. --Bennettjm 01:56, 23 May 2008 (UTC)reply
  280. This almost perfectly states my sentiments. +me J.delanoygabsadds 06:03, 5 June 2008 (UTC)reply
  281. A wonderful philosophy. Nazgul533 01:00, 6 June 2008 (UTC)reply
  282. Tyciol 17:32, 19 June 2008 (UTC)reply
  283. Protonk 05:23, 4 July 2008 (UTC)reply
  284. I may have some problems with the translation from the Latin Motto, But... Excellent viewpoint, one which I share, BrianKnez
  285. 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
  286. —CyclonenimT@lk? 18:31, 18 August 2008 (UTC)reply
  287. Preschooler.at.heart 00:25, 7 September 2008 (UTC)reply
  288. ∞Fr33kmantalk APW 15:45, 14 September 2008 (UTC)reply
  289. I'm in, I s'pose. Down with generalisations! --Ω 22:16, 22 September 2008 (UTC)reply
  290. Tealwisp 20:11, 29 September 2008 (UTC)reply
  291. evil0sheep 00:04, 07 November 2008 (UTC)reply
  292. Interesting name. I'll join. Hi878 23:31, 29 November 2008 (UTC)reply
  293. This is valid and humorous - perfect! --Cmputer 17:19, 6 December 2008 (UTC)reply
  294. Count me in...this is very interesting. Willking1979 00:37, 19 December 2008 (UTC)reply
  295. --Cerejota 04:52, 27 December 2008 (UTC)reply
  296. I...I had no idea there were other's like me...Lot49a 01:38, 29 December 2008 (UTC)reply
  297. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 16:27, 12 January 2009 (UTC)reply
  298. Whoo-hoo! PieMan.EXE 22:37, 23 January 2009 (UTC)reply
  299. I'm in. All generalizations suck. Wikipedia should be useful! Jnnnnn 05:54, 8 February 2009 (UTC)reply
  300. –Juliancolton (talk) 00:39, 17 February 2009 (UTC)reply
  301. Yes. Sign me up. Razorflame 00:40, 17 February 2009 (UTC)reply
  302. Include me. Deconstructhis 16:52, 19 February 2009 (UTC)reply
  303. Sounds like a good idea Cabe6403 19:09, 21 February 2009 (UTC)reply
  304. 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
  305. This looks like the only reasonable middle ground between deletionism and inclusionism. Except maybe transwikism. Psbsub 02:00, 19 April 2009 (UTC)reply
  306. 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)
  307. The New Mikemoral 01:16, 27 April 2009 (UTC)reply
  308. 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)
  309. I'm in this boat. Count me in! T3chl0v3r 22:14, 1 May 2009 (UTC)reply
  310. Deletionists and inclusionists - a plague on both their houses. Fences and windows 13:30, 7 May 2009 (UTC)reply
  311. Awesome! It says what it means and it means what it says! HJ Mitchell 13:48, 11 May 2009 (UTC)reply
  312. Catchy. I like it. Chzz 04:58, 24 May 2009 (UTC)reply
  313. I fixed the numbers because someone deleted a #. Thank me later. Ollie Garkey 14:56, 3 June 2009 (UTC)reply
  314. Now I just need to figure out how to cram all this onto a button.CABridges 18:34, 4 June 2009 (UTC)reply
  315. Flashdornfeld 17:52, 24 June 2009 (UTC)reply
  316. Its all good :) Jenuk1985 23:22, 2 July 2009 (UTC)reply
  317. --Courtlandsmith 16:59, 6 July 2009 (UTC)reply
  318. Jacek FH 13:29, 7 July 2009 (UTC)reply
  319. Oops, looks like I really pressed the 'Save' button. --Goutamkhandelwal 13:11, 24 July 2009 (UTC)reply
  320. Add me. ···Katerenka (討論) 00:35, 29 July 2009 (UTC)reply
  321. Recursively neutral, but not neutrally recursive. Vicenarian 17:46, 30 July 2009 (UTC)reply
  322. Awesome word even more awesome goals. Jamesofur 06:57, 13 August 2009 (UTC)reply
  323. 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
  324. 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
  325. 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
  326. Yes. This. User:Quasirandom on Wikipedia, without an account here. 16:34, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
  327. With such a simple name, how could I possibly not join... -- Houghster 16:05, 16 September 2009 (UTC)reply
  328. Je n'ai pas tout compris mais j'ai bien ri quand même ! EPolti 08:26, 14 October 2009 (UTC)reply
  329. Awesome, I'm in!--Jakkinx 21:02, 23 October 2009 (UTC)reply
  330. Finally, the moderates. Fetchcomms 01:06, 26 October 2009 (UTC)reply
  331. Now this is my kind of association! Killer Magikarp 03:22, 26 October 2009 (UTC)reply
  332. • Anakin101 16:29, 4 November 2009 (UTC)reply
  333. 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
  334. Join, now that I am deleting an article , but want it saved! --Simfan34 (talk) 16:20, 1 December 2009 (UTC)reply
  335. Perfect! Sabiona
  336. 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
  337. This is better than being extreme either way. I support this project! Kayau 12:04, 30 December 2009 (UTC)reply
  338. Pmlineditor ∞ 12:24, 30 December 2009 (UTC)reply
  339. Fringedlunatic613
  340. 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."
  341. Rock drum I see no reason that anyone could not like this!
  342. Best group ever. Manishearth 04:56, 11 March 2010 (UTC)reply
  343. I'm in! O'DaveY 07:29, 15 March 2010 (UTC)reply
  344. 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
  345. I express this philosophy. NativeForeigner 05:24, 24 March 2010 (UTC)reply
  346. Seems to fit with me. Closedspace 12:52, 14 April 2010 (UTC)reply
  347. Morg 11:14, 9 May 2010 (UTC)reply
  348. I hereby pledge alliance to the awesome AWWDMBJAWGCAWAIFDSPBATDMTD movement. I've been expecting this for years.--Darwinius 12:01, 9 May 2010 (UTC)reply
  349. Marcipangris I am an inclusionist, but only regarding articles created by me. ;)
  350. I just happen to stumble upon a group whose name says it all. Optiguy54 20:14, 26 May 2010 (UTC)reply
  351. 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
  352. I like this group's philosophy. Joining. —MC10 (T•C•L•EM) 21:54, 31 May 2010 (UTC)reply
  353. The principle is just right: every law has exceptions. rursus 13:28, 9 June 2010 (UTC)reply
  354. I concur to all the above. Fridae'sDoom 06:28, 5 July 2010 (UTC)reply
  355. 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
  356. 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
  357. A brilliant idea! Nolelover 20:19, 16 August 2010 (UTC)reply
  358. Splunge for me too!Mercurywoodrose 08:20, 23 August 2010 (UTC)reply
  359. Kwiki 23:50, 28 August 2010 (UTC)reply
  360. Consider myself a member. elektrikSHOOS 01:54, 30 August 2010 (UTC)reply
  361. 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
  362. SmoothPorcupine 02:15, 22 October 2010 (UTC)reply
  363. --Divebomb 09:30, 23 October 2010 (UTC)reply
  364. Aroni125 21:52, 24 October 2010 (UTC)reply
  365. A worthy cause to be sure. -- Kharay1977T
  366. C4MB 21:52, 15 December 2010 (UTC)reply
  367. Amen, sign me up! // Brycetom 20:10, 4 January 2011 (UTC)reply
  368. C 04:21, 3 November 2010 (UTC)reply
  369. I think some articles should be deleted because of they don't have enough references or at least improved by othersK-LO22
  370. Moderation? I'm in. Knssilm 07:40, 28 December 2010 (UTC)reply
  371. 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
  372. 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
  373. 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
  374. I completely agree with everything here. Ajraddatz (Talk) 22:31, 9 January 2011 (UTC)reply
  375. I am mostly in accord with a lot of the stuff this sort of stands for. Cjmclark 21:06, 3 February 2011 (UTC)reply
  376. Nicholasc1 14:55, 18 February 2011 (UTC)reply
  377. 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
  378. Count me in on this, I don't like articles which are... bad. GWPSP090 04:07, 22 February 2011 (UTC)reply
  379. 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
  380. This is how you join, right? I agree with the people here. Trickstergoddess 01:12, 26 March 2011 (UTC)reply
  381. Prudentia est maximus donum: prudence is the greatest gift User:Cbrick77
  382. --Veyneru 10:34, 1 May 2011 (UTC)reply
  383. I support this group and the destruction of this group. Ginsengbomb 22:48, 10 May 2011 (UTC)reply
  384. --Doh5678 19:11, 13 June 2011 (UTC)reply
  385. Forgot to put name here 4 years ago, mwahaha -- ArglebargleIV 14:32, 14 June 2011 (UTC)reply
  386. Bulwersator 16:07, 21 June 2011 (UTC)reply
  387. Σ 03:50, 18 July 2011 (UTC) I can be Redirectionist and Exclusionist too, right?reply
  388. This is interesting and humorous. Count me in~ --Tommyang 06:03, 19 July 2011 (UTC)reply
  389. Eman2129 18:23, 31 October 2011 (UTC)reply
  390. Yeah, i'm an AWWDMBJAWGCAWAIFDSPBATDMTADer. Vaarsivius 19:13, 10 November 2011 (UTC)reply
  391. Count me in. Rjmains 21:12, 9 December 2011 (UTC)reply
  392. 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)
  393. me too. [nkshirsagar@gmail.com] I like the AWWDMBJAWGCAWAIFDSPBATDMTD
  394. I'm in, Scientific Alan
  395. DITTO BROS - theabolitionist
  396. Joining the ranks. What else is new? Coffeegirlyme (talk)·
  397. 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
  398. Atlast a place where all my char matches. woo.hoo Stausifr 13:14, 9 February 2012 (UTC)reply
  399. --JayJasper 21:42, 9 February 2012 (UTC)reply
  400. Bzweebl
  401. arghh :)) Mike Coppolano (talk) 16:16, 28 March 2012 (UTC)reply
  402. Trude H
  403. Illuminatusds (talk) 16:20, 19 July 2012 (UTC)reply
  404. Zaldax (talk) 18:54, 8 August 2012 (UTC)reply
  405. God Bless The Selectionist! SpartacksCompatriot (talk) 08:36, 15 August 2012 (UTC)reply
  406. Count me in. Floating Boat (talk) 06:47, 29 August 2012 (UTC)reply
  407. 朝彦 (Asahiko) (talk) 13:37, 30 September 2012 (UTC)reply
  408. 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
  409. 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
  410. Hola todos, kon'nichiwa, kinkyujishinsokuhodesu and that good stuff :P Gwickwire (talk) 04:29, 16 November 2012 (UTC)reply
  411. L yrtneg 03:27, 8 February 2013 (UTC)reply
  412. Lukas²³ 20:56, 26 April 2013 (UTC)reply
  413. me Epicgenius (talk) 14:34, 6 May 2013 (UTC)reply
  414. José Luiz talk 02:54, 26 May 2013 (UTC)reply
  415. -- Milad A380 (talk) 16:15, 5 June 2013 (UTC) xDreply
  416. I did a thing. Neo12345292 (talk) 07:43, 10 July 2013 (UTC)reply
  417. CITIZENRICKEY
  418.    L o g  X   18:18, 20 September 2013 (UTC)reply
  419. But of course. Dwpaul (talk) 01:12, 12 October 2013 (UTC)reply
  420. Excellent Ian Furst (talk) 00:12, 3 November 2013 (UTC)reply
  421. Neljack
  422. I'm in this thing. Jiangchristopher1
  423. I believe that joining will help me get back into Wikipedia. WantaghNY (talk) 06:26, 21 February 2014 (UTC)reply
  424. 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
  425. 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
  426. Fauzan✆ talk ✉ email 15:04, 16 June 2014 (UTC)reply
  427. Fits very well in BandWidthSaving Policy of WikiMergism IMNSHO  Klaas|Z4␟V:  13:39, 27 June 2014 (UTC)reply
  428. Now no one else can say they were the 425th! --CamelCase (talk) 04:56, 30 July 2014 (UTC)reply
  429. AWWDMBJAWGCAWAIFDSPBATDMTADian pride! --Supersixseven1 (talk) 01:46, 17 September 2014 (UTC)reply
  430. Clr324 (talk) 06:56, 10 December 2014 (UTC)reply
  431. Only delete if it is a necessity - Jjamesryan (talk) 06:12, 7 January 2015 (UTC)reply
  432. This is a group which I support the idea of. Dustin (talk) 02:07, 31 March 2015 (UTC)reply
  433. Fine, you win. You have me. User:spikesjb.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Spikesjb
  434. This is the best policy to maintain. —烏Γ (kaw at me in my nest), 07:06, 26 June 2015 (UTC)reply
  435. Yes, yes, yes. Kevin12xd (talk) 16:11, 10 July 2015 (UTC)reply
  436. I join because I want to join because I need to join because I joined. Fr33d0m0fSp33c4 (talk) 23:50, 15 October 2015 (UTC)reply
  437. I gladly sign up! We need to put a damper on excessive deletionism. Garagepunk66 (talk) 01:15, 5 November 2015 (UTC)reply
  438. --John123521 (talk) 14:27, 5 March 2016 (UTC)reply
  439. Wishds (talk) 10:17, 25 March 2016 (UTC)reply
  440. 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
  441. --DerMaxdorfer (talk) 21:00, 1 May 2016 (UTC)reply
  442. --TerraCodes 18:12, 7 May 2016 (UTC)reply
  443. Excessive deletionism hurts the encyclopedia, but article with no good sources or content should be deleted - ThePlatypusofDoom Talk
  444. User:HappyValleyEditor. Am also interested in becoming the FSO (Fashion Safety Officer) for the organization.
  445. 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
  446. WikiPancake (talk) 12:10, 11 September 2016 (UTC)reply
  447. TheStrayDog (talk) 11:18, 20 September 2016 (UTC)reply
  448. Adotchar (talk)
  449. The name, but also I agree with the philosophy AnAwesomeArticleEditor (talk) 19:41, 31 December 2016 (UTC)reply
  450. 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)
  451. stranger195 (talk • contribs • guestbook) 06:19, 28 March 2017 (UTC)reply
  452. Deletionism is spreading and it needs a damper; And the name is more than cool. Cheers.Khawkbend (talk)
  453. Joshualouie711 (talk) 20:12, 17 May 2017 (UTC)reply
  454. User:Jjm596 --Jjm596 (talk) 16:31, 12 June 2017 (UTC)reply
  455. 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
  456. Mel00010 (talk) 00:13, 16 June 2017 (UTC)reply
  457. --Mychemicalromanceisrealemo (talk) 21:46, 1 August 2017 (UTC)reply
  458. How could I not join? - LetsBeKings (talk)
  459. SgThomas
  460. HyperrealLogic (talk) 03:27, 4 October 2017 (UTC)reply
  461. Bobherry (talk)
  462. arafey (talk) 18:17, 28 November 2017 (UTC)reply
  463. DisgruntledGM (talk) 01:55, 3 December 2017 (UTC)reply
  464. 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
  465. 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
  466. Count me in. I'd like to join. --Rockower (talk) 15:25, 20 December 2017 (UTC)reply
  467. Cnzx (talk)
  468. Miguu (talk) 01:33, 17 April 2018 (UTC)reply
  469. AWWDMBJAWGCAWAIFDSPBATDMTADer+1 --Brror (talk) 13:36, 3 July 2018 (UTC)reply
  470. Oh, im so agree to this and like the humor! --Mr Misterio2 (talk) 00:50, 29 July 2018 (UTC)reply
  471. 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
  472. this should be fun! —-Wingedspy
  473. Undarat (talk) 20:58, 27 October 2018 (UTC)reply
  474. Joined because of the acronym, even though an inclusionist. Oshawott 12 ==()== Talk to me! 01:46, 30 October 2018 (UTC)reply
  475. Ok;' Cortex128 (talk)
  476. 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
  477. 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
  478. More inclusionist than deletionist. Smallchief (talk) 18:06, 24 April 2019 (UTC)reply
  479. 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
  480. 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
  481. 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
  482. Groiglery1217 (talk)
  483. I'm not sure if the title is descriptive enough...? --NearMiddayNight (Feel free to come talk with me). 12:24, 18 December 2019 (UTC) 201912180024Zreply
  484. Yes please! IamMattDavies (talk) 17:44, 3 May 2020 (UTC)reply
  485. Just gonna edit a bit (talk) 23:02, 11 June 2020 (UTC)reply
  486. 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
  487. 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)
  488. yep --ApChrKey (talk) 17:01, 10 August 2020 (UTC)reply
  489. arghh :)) Joris Darlington Quarshie (talk) 11:23, 12 August 2020 (UTC)reply
  490. h. Gerald Waldo Luis (talk) 09:06, 25 August 2020 (UTC)reply
  491. 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
  492. I think this is just a good philosophy for life. Birdn4t0r (talk) 23:52, 20 October 2020 (UTC)reply
  493. 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
  494. y e s JJPMaster (talk) 12:29, 1 December 2020(UTC)
  495. Jeromeenriquez (talk)
  496. consider me a member of this elect group :) Yitzilitt (talk) 05:40, 31 January 2021 (UTC)reply
  497. Luke081515 22:43, 7 February 2021 (UTC)reply
  498. Kashmorwiki (talk) 17:40, 5 March 2021 (UTC)reply
  499. --Tharun S Yadla (talk) 15:58, 6 March 2021 (UTC)reply
  500. I am in--142.127.165.215 02:39, 18 March 2021 (UTC)reply
  501. Joining this terrible group. Pink Saffron (talk) 15:50, 25 March 2021 (UTC)reply
  502. Solo por ser el miembro #500 José Furtado (talk) 17:09, 20 April 2021 (UTC)reply
  503. peepoPogClimbingTreeHard4House HYPERCLAP Bumpf (talk) 23:05, 10 May 2021 (UTC)Bumpfreply
  504. Finally, people who understand it. Slow claps all around.86legs (talk) 11:19, 20 May 2021 (UTC)reply
  505. 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
  506. I, too, identify as chaotic neutral. --LordPeterII (talk) 13:07, 29 June 2021 (UTC)reply
  507. Well, the name is quirky and members of this are rarer than admins so... --Elytrian (talk) 9:25, 6 July 2021 (IST)
  508. "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
  509. 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
  510. Im in Randoperson1 (talk) 00:05, 19 August 2021 (UTC)reply
  511. Sounds like a good time, I'm all for it. EllieEcon (talk) 19:05, 25 August 2021 (UTC)reply
  512. Its a long name, but its worth it. Elytrian (talk) 06:06, 2 September 2021 (UTC)reply
  513. that's definitely me. --SHB2000 (talk | contibs) 11:09, 24 September 2021 (UTC)reply
  514. fit for me. kann ich so vertreten. --M. Gimmerthal (talk) 15:21, 31 January 2022 (UTC)reply
  515. I'm from viwiki Minh Ming (talk) 12:28, 16 February 2022 (UTC)reply
  516. 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 inireply
  517. 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
  518. Mismatched shoes (talk) 20:07, 8 March 2022 (UTC)-joining for the abreviationreply
  519. I find this pretty hilarious,Count me in! Cognent (talk) 03:01, 13 April 2022 (UTC)reply
  520. 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
  521. Another huge userbox, and it fits me perfectly! Bumpf (talk) 00:42, 13 May 2022 (UTC)reply
  522. Not so sure if i'm doing this right, but count me in! Leeo pard kat (talk) 14:30, 25 May 2022 (UTC)reply
  523. I came, I saw, I waffled. KevAvatar (talk) 18:49, 6 June 2022 (UTC)reply
  524. Elbow macaroni. Herny32c (talk)
  525. 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
  526. I'm here now too I guess...User:CarolingianCitizen ([User talk:CarolingianCitizen|talk])
  527. Couldn't miss out on this! Eejit43 (talk) 00:09, 13 October 2022 (UTC)reply
  528. I've slways hoped there was a Wikipedia club with a long name!Justyouraveragelechuga (talk) 04:52, 29 December 2022 (UTC)reply
  529. I have nothing to do so, I'm in! Randomperson43322 (talk) 19:24 30 January 2023 (UTC)
  530. 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
  531. Totally not joining for the abbreviation... Mashedpotatoes52 (User talk:Mashedpotatoes52) 18:39, 13 February 2023 (UTC)reply
  532. Silikonz💬 02:14, 14 February 2023 (UTC)reply
  533. If this isn't mentioned at my funeral then I'm not dying. -kgoodluck- (talk) 12:45, 19 February 2023 (UTC)reply
  534. This sounds reasonable. ElectricAutumn (talk) 00:54, 27 February 2023 (UTC)reply
  535. Yes – if n people want something there, so will n+1. Northernhenge (talk) 18:45, 11 April 2023 (UTC)reply
  536. 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
  537. Don't Forget me! :)Tea4life (talk) 06:35, 17 April 2023 (UTC)reply
  538. well this seems fun UpdateWindows (talk) 18:09, 27 April 2023 (UTC)reply
  539. Count me in I like it. Jack4576 (talk) 08:33, 10 May 2023 (UTC)reply
  540. Why is this on metawiki if it's in English Aaron Liu (talk) 00:41, 5 June 2023 (UTC)reply
  541. 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
  542. Love the short, concise name. HarmfulHurdle91
  543. Finally I have found everyone else who has seen the light! Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 00:47, 2 August 2023 (UTC)reply
  544. Da bin ich dabei! Stephan Hense (talk) 11:03, 23 August 2023 (UTC)reply
  545. Ah. Wonderful, wonderful. What a joyous occasion. SAMBOT2000xp (t alk) 13:17, 08 September 2023 (UTC)reply
  546. Present MicrobiologyMarcus (talk) 17:57, 14 September 2023 (UTC)reply
  547. Did I forget to sign my name here? Yes. Spinixster (talk) 13:51, 22 September 2023 (UTC)reply
  548. I´m gonna be here until an article is made on my fathers dissapearence. TheKrazedKat (talk) 4:08, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
  549. i will join Hi me bye (talk) 13:10, 18 October 2023 (UTC)reply
  550. I will dedicate my life to this association narvstheworld 10:43, 27 October 2023 (UTC)reply
  551. am joining :) - Spdc097 (talk) 23:54, 4 November 2023 (UTC)reply
  552. Well, yes! Drdr150 (talk) 21:05, 30 November 2023 (UTC)reply
  553. Proud member, --Ankermast (talk) 14:43, 4 December 2023 (UTC)reply
  554. 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
  555. That's very interesting. Umarxon III (talk) 15:04, 29 January 2024 (UTC).reply
  556. Totally want to join! MetaAlphaBeta (talk) 16:13, 11 February 2024 (UTC).reply
  557. This seems like the perfect association for me on Wikipedia - SpacePod9 (talk) 22:34, 4 March 2024 (UTC)reply
  558. Sup fellas - Thewardenofhistory 22:11, 26 March 2024
  559. Hi, friends! ValeZh1987 (talk) 10:38, 15 April 2024 (UTC)reply
  560. Alright, this group looks interesting! Allzhukov (talk) 16:28, 15 April 2024 (UTC)reply
  561. consider this an immediate action directly opposite to a resignation towards my membership in the group. Cassie Schebel (talk)
  562. ʕ •ᴥ•ʔ 🐢 🧇 Apqtheia
  563. Who wouldn’t want to be a big part of this? Myrealnamm (💬talk · ✏️contribs) at 22:08, 10 May 2024 (UTC)reply
  564. Sup,People Fewsnake
  565. Love the acronym --Shafi ahmed.0 (talk) 00:37, 16 June 2024 (UTC)reply
  566. Old, dead stubs should be assessed for notability — Your local Sink Cat (The Sink). 01:57, 15 August 2024 (UTC)reply
  567. I Dislike Making Broad Judgments About the Worthiness of Unwieldy Initialisms, or Whether They Should be Called Acronyms. - Tristan Snow (talk) 02:55, 31 August 2024 (UTC)reply
  568. Sounds insane... I'm in! Limmidy (talk) 20:28, 1 September 2024 (UTC)reply
  569. CHELSEA CHELSEA CHELSEAAAAAAAAAAA Tr.muuna
  570. XRozuRozu (talk) 06:05, 12 December 2024 (UTC)reply
  571. Miles hxt (talk) 16:57, 25 December 2024 (UTC) - I love AWWDMBJAWGCAWAIFDSPBATDMTAD.reply
  572. sunglasses on, the future is bright Onikaburgers (talk) 22:29, 19 January 2025 (UTC)reply
  573. I like this kind of stuff CDiggity09
  574. I Dislike Making Broad Judgments About the Worthiness of a General Category of Article, and Am in Favor of the Deletion of Some Particularly Bad Articles, but That Doesn't Mean I Am A Deletionist Unknown Lifeform | Talk 09:39, 13 February 2025 (UTC)reply
  575. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ OnixPhilos ໒꒱˚｡⋆
  576. Yooooooooooooooo -- UwU.Raihanur (talk) 20:22, 19 March 2025 (UTC)reply
  577. Count me in -- TurtleFrog (talk) 9:12, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
  578. Agree. ApexParagon (talk) 20:58, 13 April 2025 (UTC)reply
  579. Egad! I didn't even bother to make myself a member before using the enwiki ubx. Better sign before I am exposed as a fraud. Doozy (talk) 19:02, 21 April 2025 (UTC)reply
  580. why not - WyattPlayz
  581. Oh yes ScrabbleTiles (talk) 12:51, 30 April 2025 (UTC)reply
  582. Opm581 (talk) 03:03, 3 May 2025 (UTC)reply
  583. Absolutely! Not-cheesewhisk3rs (talk) 11:33, 27 June 2025 (UTC)reply
  584. Wait, am I already on here? —FishOnSkates (talk) 18:37, 6 July 2025 (UTC)reply
  585. Not entirely sure if I agree with anything this association is about but I do love the acronym so -45dogs (talk) 20:52, 24 July 2025 (UTC)reply
  586. Enderelf (talk) 12:04, 13 August 2025 (UTC) - :3 delete the bad pages or rewrite them, dont keep useless things cluttering wikipediareply
  587. YAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY ~Rafael! (He, him) • talk to me? 19:55, 13 August 2025 (UTC)reply
  588. Count me in! User:Idiot1729 (talk) 03:20, 25 August 2025 (UTC)reply
  589. I just love the acronym, ready to blast User:Abhinavrpresad
  590. I also love the acronym! User:Grahammydoodle
  591. Not only do I love the acronym, I also agree with the argument being proposed. Truly though, I've never felt so accepted in all my life. These people look deep within my soul and assign me a number based on the order in which I joined. *sniffs tearily* User:Cottagechez
  592. Count me in! - Oryno (talk) 05:29, 22 September 2025 (UTC)reply
  593. I, too, love the acronym! LuniZunie (talk) 23:52, 8 October 2025 (UTC)reply
  594. I like joining groups with long acronyms for no reason other than the fact that they are groups with long acronyms. Aydoh8[what have I done now?] 00:47, 9 October 2025 (UTC)reply
  595. Words. Hyraemous (talk) 18:01, 21 October 2025 (UTC)reply
  596. why not? Pirq (talk) 03:03, 4 November 2025 (UTC)reply
  597. Oofgl (talk) 18:23, 21 November 2025 (UTC)reply
  598. Yes! Rfqii Rfqii (talk) 01:00, 8 December 2025 (UTC)reply
  599. Of course. Starlet147 (talk) 00:17, 22 January 2026 (UTC)reply
  600. Do you accept IP addresses? ~2026-56754-3 (talk)
  601. Happy to join! --Langusto (talk) 10:32, 31 January 2026 (UTC)reply
  602. Acronyms and open mindsets, my favorite! LambLover229 (talk) 00:03, 10 February 2026 (UTC)reply
  603. i'm here too, l like big acronyms Map Enjoyer (talk) 13:59, 26 February 2026 (UTC)reply
  604. hmmm, why not? LeviathanShinobi (talk) 21:14, 6 March 2026 (IST)
  605. "Wikipedia is how we earn seventy-three percent of our research funding!" - Dr. Coomer, Half-Life VR but the AI Is Self-Aware--Ace.still.life (talk) 12:29, 11 March 2026 (UTC)reply
  606. I want this association's infobox. IdiosyncraticLawyer (talk) 23:14, 27 March 2026 (UTC)reply
  607. amazing acronym Cicada1010 (talk) 19:23, 31 March 2026 (UTC)reply
  608. Glad to find like-minded Wikipedians. Bootkinero (talk) 05:14, 21 May 2026 (UTC)reply
  609. something something something acronym something research something i dislike bad articles something Riklik1984 (talk) 00:47, 12 June 2026 (UTC)reply
  610. ah yes, very nice acronym Kozak391 (talk) 11:57, 20 July 2026 (UTC)reply
    I like joke 16dvnk (talk) 12:58, 31 July 2026 (UTC)reply
  611. Hello World. Arzt Füllfederhalter (talk)07:50, 7 August 2026 (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=30896846"