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
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
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. Nhandler05:57, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh look, here's my name again. Ashibaka 00:55, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Thanks Ashibaka for providing a "middle ground". Objective Researcher 05:11, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
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)
I disagree with proposed "common goals." Adraeus 13:47, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
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)
This looks like it includes my general POV about stuff. Alphax 02:17, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC
Ah, a club for me! Bratsche 03:14, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Ah, yes. This fits me just fine. Can I get the motto on a bumper sticker? – ClockworkSoul 18:06, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
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)
Boffy b 21:45, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC) For great justice!
After a great deal of consideration, I feel this association is the place for me. Thryduulf 10:21, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Antandrus18:12, 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]
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)
You know what you doing. Pufferfish101 02:14, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I love the name of this group. It fits me perfectly. Mred64 15:47, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
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".
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]
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. Joshurtree07:32, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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. ^_^ Cernen10:47, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be honest: I just wanted that cool, really long graphic. Antifamilymang
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]
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 Aardvark09:57, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Leifern is in and thinks deletionists are self-righteous prigs who probably can't take a joke either.
--Reo On22:43, 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]
--Proofreader16:49, 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]
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. Cathryn13:24, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Woah~ So I am the two hundred and ninety-eighth member of this A.W.W... err... Association of Wikipedian Who... argh~! Whatever! --Golvin13:39, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
AHAHA! I have joined now! Good for me. Great motto and goal and stuff. doughmuffins|talk to me!
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...) Rickyrab22:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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. --Ceyockey00:02, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, this is probably one of the greatest usergroups of all time. Yeah. Now for quadruple-tilde STRIKE! Ranmoth04:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC). Oh, wait...[reply]
Wow, Im 327 in line. wonder what i get at the end... chickenfeed9
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.-Wikiphilia02:32, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. :) Mjunnior14:32, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. Themcman114:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Have patience with everything unresolved and try to love the questions themselves.' Rainer Maria Rilke.--Ziji23:58, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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? Carptrash02:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I pledge allegiance to the AWWDMBJAWGCAWAIFDSPBATDMTD, so that I may fell good about deleting horrible articles, but helping bad articles. Boricuaeddie02:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. Wizardman02:30, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, this is probably one of the greatest usergroups of all time. Yeah. Now for quadruple-tilde STRIKE! Ranmoth04:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC). Oh, wait...[reply]
Wow, Im 327 in line. wonder what i get at the end... chickenfeed9
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. Kalthuras23:19, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. --Gwyndon18:23, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I may have some problems with the translation from the Latin Motto, But... Excellent viewpoint, one which I share, BrianKnez
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! Ilikepie222120:51, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This looks like the only reasonable middle ground between deletionism and inclusionism. Except maybe transwikism. Psbsub02:00, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)
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! Phantomsteve23:08, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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.Ojay12323:57, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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. Michaelocc01:14, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. This. User:Quasirandom on Wikipedia, without an account here. 16:34, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Join. Generalizations are bad. Oops, that was a generalization. SOME generalizations are bad. There I fixed it. Best Association of Wikipedians ever! Specs11217:57, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that this association exists may occasionally distract editors from the purpose of WMF projects, but hell, I'll take the risk! Physchim6215:18, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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."
Rock drum I see no reason that anyone could not like this!
I hereby pledge alliance to the awesome AWWDMBJAWGCAWAIFDSPBATDMTD movement. I've been expecting this for years.--Darwinius12:01, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Marcipangris I am an inclusionist, but only regarding articles created by me. ;)
Good idea. Inclusionists who listen to common sense (bad articles should be deleted). I think we should get a shorter name though. --Alpha Quadrant21:20, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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.choppers12:21, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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 two11:04, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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! Troodon5810:51, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Some articles should never have existed under notability guidelines, but that doesn't mean the rest shouldn't exit. Ergo, I'm signing up. Imzadi197920:59, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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♠nSoul14:13, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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)
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. --ARoseWolf17:40, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the name is quirky and members of this are rarer than admins so... --Elytrian (talk) 9:25, 6 July 2021 (IST)
"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]
Azmi199515:23, 6 March 2022 (UTC) - Saya dukung dan saya sokong semua pandangan yang ada di sini kerana saya percaya bahawa persatuan ini merupakan persatuan yang boleh menyentuh jiwa ini[reply]
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]
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]
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]
I have nothing to do so, I'm in! Randomperson43322 (talk) 19:24 30 January 2023 (UTC)
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]
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]
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]