Wikimedia Meta-Wiki

Association of Inclusionist Wikipedians/Members

< Association of Inclusionist Wikipedians

How to become a member edit

All you have to do to become a member is cut and paste:

{{inclusionist}}

...to your user page.

Current list of members edit

Wikipedia: w:Category:Inclusionist Wikipedians

Wikimedia.org: Category:Inclusionist Wikipedians

Old list of members edit

NOTE: USERS HAVE BEEN ADDED TO THIS LIST WITHOUT THEIR PERMISSION

This is an old list,

Members on this list, please add {{inclusionist}} or one of the templates above to your page and remove your name from this list.

  1. Tlogmer ( talk / contributions ) 18:02, 14 July 2007 (UTC) Signed up as member of w:Article Rescue Squadron[reply]
  2. QueerAsFolk, 18:02, 14 July 2007 (UTC) Signed up as member of w:Article Rescue Squadron[reply]
  3. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 21:59, 14 July 2007 (UTC) - Something needs to be fixed about deletion, and this is one good place to start. Signed up as member of w:Article Rescue Squadron[reply]
  4. Maltrich 02:20, 15 July 2007 (UTC) Signed up as member of w:Article Rescue Squadron[reply]
  5. Rebecca 02:25, 15 July 2007 (UTC) - Count me in. Signed up as member of w:Article Rescue Squadron[reply]
  6. Fuzheado | Talk - I suppose I'm obliged to sign up as my blog post instigated much of this. :) There is too much emphasis on pruning, filtering and destroying, but without the cooperative community discussion, {{sofixit}} culture, and a roll up your sleeves attitude. Signed up as member of w:Article Rescue Squadron
  7. Catherine\talk 05:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC) - I'll help where I can. Signed up as member of w:Article Rescue Squadron[reply]
  8. Davewild 19:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC) - Where I can help will do so. Signed up as member of w:Article Rescue Squadron[reply]
  9. DGG (talk) 04:00, 17 July 2007 (UTC) - The key is balance, and willingnesss to improve articles--if everyone participated in one Afd and fixed one article and found one hopeless article to delete, we could really improve WP. Signed up as member of w:Article Rescue Squadron[reply]
  10. Sjc 09:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC) - Long overdue. Wikipedia is not paper - keep that link to hand, it is the number one weapon we have in our arsenal against the rapine depredations of the deletionists. Signed up as member of w:Article Rescue Squadron[reply]
  11. Thespian 10:33, 17 July 2007 (UTC) - This proactive sort of movement warms the cockles of my inclusionist heart. Signed up as member of w:Article Rescue Squadron[reply]
  12. Canley 11:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC) - My proudest moments on Wikipedia have been rescuing articles from the jaws of AfD with a spot of referencing and rewriting. I'd be delighted to be a part of this much-needed team. Signed up as member of w:Article Rescue Squadron[reply]
  13. Dc76 12:41, 17 July 2007 (UTC) - Hi. I just saw the article about forming of this discussion group on Signpost, and I would like to join in. My reasons for joining are the ones presented above e.g. by DGG and Fuzheado. I suggest to start something like "AfR" (Articles for Rescue), where any person can nominate articles. The idea, as I understand, would be 1) to have a short discussion about what can be done with the particular article to improve it (or to recongnize it was unsalvageble), with specific propositions followed by 2) concrete actions ("I can do this. Here I am doing it. Now could you plz do that.") and 3) a final "vote" to see if the article has reached a level where it can be moved to mainspace. Signed up as member of w:Article Rescue Squadron[reply]
  14. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:04, 17 July 2007 (UTC) Signed up as member of w:Article Rescue Squadron[reply]
  15. DickClarkMises 20:32, 17 July 2007 (UTC) Signed up as member of w:Article Rescue Squadron[reply]
  16. Wl219 21:29, 17 July 2007 (UTC) Signed up as member of w:Article Rescue Squadron[reply]
  17. Thewinchester (talk) 03:06, 18 July 2007 (UTC) Having had to advocate for the deletion of bad articles such as Out Now Consulting and save Karrinyup Shopping Centre from crazed deletionists who don't know how to use cleanup tags, I can totally understand the purpose of this group. Signed up as member of w:Article Rescue Squadron[reply]
  18. bibliomaniac15 BUY NOW! 05:54, 18 July 2007 (UTC) Signed up as member of w:Article Rescue Squadron[reply]
  19. Zidel333 AfD breaks my heart. So, I'm happy to help as best I can. :) Please keep me posted of any new info. Signed up as member of w:Article Rescue Squadron
  20. Recurring dreams Count me in. Signed up as member of w:Article Rescue Squadron
  21. Ziji (talk email) 06:26, 19 July 2007 (UTC) It's been bugging me too and now at last a flying squadron to unswat the swatters Signed up as member of w:Article Rescue Squadron[reply]
  22. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 07:24, 19 July 2007 (UTC) Thank heavens for something like this. Signed up as member of w:Article Rescue Squadron[reply]
  23. Joshdboz 10:28, 19 July 2007 (UTC) This is a great idea. I can't stand when articles are deleted even when the notability of the topic is admitted! Signed up as member of w:Article Rescue Squadron[reply]
  24. Jaranda wat's sup 20:09, 19 July 2007 (UTC) - Only when it's certain sports articles Signed up as member of w:Article Rescue Squadron[reply]
  25. Violask81976 Most definitely. Signed up as member of w:Article Rescue Squadron
  26. Gnangarra - notability is a corner stone of Wikipedia it cannot be ignored. Signed up as member of w:Article Rescue Squadron
  27. Mathmo Talk, because I am a wild-eyed inclusionist. ;) Signed up as member of w:Article Rescue Squadron
  28. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 16:44, 21 July 2007 (UTC) - Somehow I seem to find a lot of Citations for Shopping Centres. Signed up as member of w:Article Rescue Squadron[reply]
  29. Zanimum 17:08, 21 July 2007 (UTC) Presuming the rescued articles remain truly worth rescuing. Signed up as member of w:Article Rescue Squadron[reply]
  30. SimonP 17:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC) Signed up as member of w:Article Rescue Squadron[reply]
  31. Dhartung | Talk 21:52, 23 July 2007 (UTC) This is a lot of what I do already. I vote delete on things, but many times salvageable articles are deleted just because nobody cares to try. Nominators who fail to do research first are only part of the problem. Signed up as member of w:Article Rescue Squadron[reply]
  32. MrPrada 07:45, 25 July 2007 (UTC) - Sometimes I wonder if there are more people out there tagging articles then writing them. Sign me up! Signed up as member of w:Article Rescue Squadron[reply]
  33. T3Smile 16:39, 2 August 2007 (UTC) - I had an article about an Australian Computer Pioneer, Anthony Chidiac, that was deleted and all my thesis work was lost! The guy had so much notable material it was wiped after only being on wikipedia for five days!! count me in! Signed up as member of w:Article Rescue Squadron[reply]
  34. SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 14:41, 25 July 2007 (UTC) Why? Pretty much exactly what DGG said above. This Wikigroup should not (and presently does not seem to be) an rabid inclusionism force, but rather a balancing factor against the entropy of extremist deletionism, which is clearly rampant. Signed up as member of w:Article Rescue Squadron[reply]
  35. DHowell 22:51, 25 July 2007 (UTC) Sounds like a great idea. I'm also thinking of starting an "Article Adoption Agency" for articles which are useful and/or interesting (which as we all know won't save them from deletion) which get deleted despite the best efforts to rescue them, to find another wiki home to which they can be transwikied. Signed up as member of w:Article Rescue Squadron[reply]
  36. Tim Vickers 05:09, 28 July 2007 (UTC) - Drop me a note when biology or medicine articles are nominated as having questionable accuracy/notability. I'll be happy to look into it. Signed up as member of w:Article Rescue Squadron[reply]
  37. Dsmdgold I am especially interested in the misuse of the criteria for speedy deletion. Dsmdgold 12:18, 1 August 2007 (UTC) Signed up as member of w:Article Rescue Squadron[reply]
  38. xDanielxTalk 22:53, 8 August 2007 (UTC) Signed up as member of w:Article Rescue Squadron[reply]
  39. AndyJones. Count me in. 12:41, 9 August 2007 (UTC) Signed up as member of w:Article Rescue Squadron[reply]
  40. User:Dreftymac. dr.ef.tymac 16:54, 22 August 2007 (UTC) Signed up as member of w:Article Rescue Squadron[reply]
  41. Zeborah 06:21, 28 August 2007 (UTC) - I've been trying to do this sort of thing in an off-and-on way for a while; hopefully being part of a group will spur me on to do it some more. Signed up as member of w:Article Rescue Squadron[reply]
  42. Timotab Timothy (not Tim dagnabbit!) 16:20, 3 September 2007 (UTC) Signed up as member of w:Article Rescue Squadron[reply]
  43. Kevin Murray 20:02, 3 September 2007 (UTC) Signed up as member of w:Article Rescue Squadron[reply]
  44. Fosnez 20:38, 4 September 2007 (UTC) - Sign me up! Signed up as member of w:Article Rescue Squadron[reply]
  45. Ichormosquito I feel at home. Thanks, Fosnez! Article creation should always be encouraged. 05:23, 13 September 2007 (UTC) Signed up as member of w:Article Rescue Squadron[reply]
  46. Ronabop Brilliant! 13 September 2007 (UTC) Signed up as member of w:Article Rescue Squadron
  47. Cricket02 Yes, good idea. Lately I'm finding articles nominated for deletion with just minutes of its creation. To me that is biting the newcomers. I'll agree there are plenty that don't belong, but there are many that need saving too. ♫ Cricket02 01:19, 15 September 2007 (UTC) Signed up as member of w:Article Rescue Squadron[reply]
  48. ALLSTAR ECHO 02:02, 15 September 2007 (UTC) - To The Rescue! Signed up as member of w:Article Rescue Squadron[reply]
  49. Borgardetalk 08:56, 18 September 2007 (UTC) Signed up as member of w:Article Rescue Squadron[reply]
  50. Neil ム - I am a deletionist, and will happily delete all kinds of rubbish. But topics that should be on Wikipedia but the article is so crappy it needs rescuing from AFD must be saved. I've recsusitated a few myself from AFD by improving them. Signed up as member of w:Article Rescue Squadron
  51. Phgao 17:43, 18 September 2007 (UTC) Signed up as member of w:Article Rescue Squadron[reply]
  52. Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 18:14, 19 September 2007 (UTC) Signed up as member of w:Article Rescue Squadron[reply]
  53. I've already done this a few times (most recently Barrington Irving, which was initially speedied), and I'd be happy to see it continue in more formal fashion. JavaTenor 19:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC) Signed up as member of w:Article Rescue Squadron[reply]
  54. Gordonofcartion. Fine idea. I do lean toward deletionism, but (as others have said above) it's always good to turn around AFDs based on article weaknesses that can be quickly mended. Gordonofcartoon 21:55, 19 September 2007 (UTC) Signed up as member of w:Article Rescue Squadron[reply]
  55. Kizor. No particular qualifications, but I've been around WP for a while; drop me a line if you need a hand. 00:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC) Signed up as member of w:Article Rescue Squadron[reply]
  56. Victor falk I like that "Sofixit Spirit" stuff. --Victor falk 14:31, 21 September 2007 (UTC) Signed up as member of w:Article Rescue Squadron[reply]
  57. Boracay Bill -- I've been doing this sort of stuff as a WP:Wikignome and as a WP:ICU member. Sign me up. 00:54, 24 September 2007 (UTC) Signed up as member of w:Article Rescue Squadron[reply]
  58. SevenOfDiamonds 13:03, 24 September 2007 (UTC) Signed up as member of w:Article Rescue Squadron[reply]
  59. SarekOfVulcan 20:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC) - I'm in: I love fixing articles. Signed up as member of w:Article Rescue Squadron[reply]
  60. Puchiko About a hundred articles are proposed for deletion every day. Surely, not all of them can be hopeless cases. --Puchiko 16:48, 27 September 2007 (UTC) Signed up as member of w:Article Rescue Squadron[reply]
  61. Chubbles I am ace at determining the notability of musicians and musical ensembles. I'm happy to be contacted about any problem cases. Signed up as member of w:Article Rescue Squadron
  62. Jreferee - I am particularly interested in AfD'd articles where there is a huge disagreement over whether a topic is notable and nobody takes any steps to actually reference the article. In other words, where everyone so eager to talk the talk, I'm willing to walk the walk. Signed up as member of w:Article Rescue Squadron
  63. Borisu - Wikipedia is too important to let the average mob rule it. Signed up as member of w:Article Rescue Squadron
  64. Carcharoth 00:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC) Signed up as member of w:Article Rescue Squadron[reply]
  65. Laualoha 11:42, 4 October 2007 (UTC) I can help with whatever is needed, as time & drama permits, but can especially try to help with minority articles that are having a hard time being understood as valid. Do my best, anyway. Signed up as member of w:Article Rescue Squadron
  66. Andrewa Looks a very worthwhile addition to Wikiculture. See User:Andrewa/creed. Signed up as member of w:Article Rescue Squadron
  67. Sasawatcan talk and Edit 20:26, 10 November 2007 (UTC) Signed up as member of w:Article Rescue Squadron[reply]
  68. rkmlai (talk) 21:59, 26 November 2007 (UTC) Signed up as member of w:Article Rescue Squadron[reply]
  69. Superlex (talk) 07:35, 27 November 2007 (UTC) - It's great to see people working to improve articles. Noble cause. Signed up as member of w:Article Rescue Squadron[reply]
  70. Harland1 (talk) 16:43, 27 November 2007 (UTC) Signed up as member of w:Article Rescue Squadron[reply]
  71. Plasma Twa 2 07:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC) - Saw this during the afd for Television series considered the greatest ever. Sounds like a noble cause. Sign me up. Signed up as member of w:Article Rescue Squadron[reply]
  72. brighterorange (talk) 16:13, 21 December 2007 (UTC) (admin) This is a good idea. I really hate seeing a borderline article, spending effort to fix it, and then seeing that effort wasted because of the 6 delete votes cast before I started! Signed up as member of w:Article Rescue Squadron[reply]
  73. Abd (talk) 22:45, 24 December 2007 (UTC) I've become aware of many articles on notable subjects deleted based on content arguments. That's serious, and easily used to introduce a subtle POV bias in the encyclopedia, through selective exclusion of "inconvenient" articles. If content arguments couldn't be used, if admins would ignore content arguments, there would still be a need for better oversight of AfDs, for I've seen non-notability used as an argument when notability is, at least, debatable, and there is little harm in the existence of a marginally notable article. But if nobody who understands the notability notices the AfD.... happens all the time. Signed up as member of w:Article Rescue Squadron[reply]
  74. Hdt83 Chat 09:34, 31 December 2007 (UTC) I've come across several AFDs where the article was in bad shape but the subject was notable. A good way to help improve Wikipedia. --Hdt83 Chat 09:34, 31 December 2007 (UTC) Signed up as member of w:Article Rescue Squadron[reply]
  75. EdDownUnder (talk) 03:16, 5 January 2008 (UTC) Signed up as member of w:Article Rescue Squadron[reply]
  76. RoninBK T C 20:39, 19 January 2008 (UTC) I like this idea, this is why I started patrolling AfD in the first place. Signed up as member of w:Article Rescue Squadron[reply]
  77. @pple complain 16:21, 21 January 2008 (UTC) Signed up as member of w:Article Rescue Squadron[reply]
  78. Wageless (talk) 01:56, 22 January 2008 (UTC) I want to be a part of this. Signed up as member of w:Article Rescue Squadron[reply]
  79. Ursasapien (talk) 08:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC) Signed up as member of w:Article Rescue Squadron[reply]
  80. Random Fixer Of Things (talk) 18:19, 3 February 2008 (UTC) I am amazed by how many good (or potentially good) articles fall foul of PROD, SPEEDY and AFD and it seems that people not getting involved is what allows this to happen - "The only thing necessary for deletion is for good men to do nothing..."' Signed up as member of w:Article Rescue Squadron[reply]
  81. MASEM 14:38, 4 February 2008 (UTC) Signed up as member of w:Article Rescue Squadron[reply]
  82. Naglfar or Gleipnir? (talk) 21:51, 4 February 2008 (UTC) Good, an organization that is opposed to throwing out stub or small articles. My thanks. Great articles don't just appear, they are formed and edited up to great articles. Signed up as member of w:Article Rescue Squadron[reply]
  83. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:31, 8 February 2008 (UTC) Signed up as member of w:Article Rescue Squadron[reply]
  84. Paularblaster (talk) 18:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC) Signed up as member of w:Article Rescue Squadron[reply]
  85. Mostlyharmless (talk) 23:27, 10 February 2008 (UTC) Signed up as member of w:Article Rescue Squadron[reply]
  86. Bilby (talk) 12:23, 16 February 2008 (UTC) Signed up as member of w:Article Rescue Squadron[reply]
  87. Tinucherian (talk) 01:26, 26 February 2008 (UTC) Signed up as member of w:Article Rescue Squadron[reply]
  88. Hazillow (talk) 07:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC) Signed up as member of w:Article Rescue Squadron[reply]
  89. Skeletor 0 (talk) 03:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC) To arms! Signed up as member of w:Article Rescue Squadron[reply]
  90. Kitty53 (talk) 04:06, 6 March 2008 (UTC) I am so glad something like this exists! I want to save articles on Wikipedia! I don't know why such good articles get deleted, but if I should ever bump into an article that needs our help, I will be there when I have time! I mean, those poor, innocent articles, they deserve to exist on Wikipedia! I wish I was part of this eversince I joined Wikipedia. All that should be deleted are articles that view nonsense, and accidental creations! Articles that view very little info should be expanded, not deleted! Very small articles/stubs should just be expanded enough to stay on Wikipedia for all eternity!Kitty53 (talk) 04:06, 6 March 2008 (UTC) Signed up as member of w:Article Rescue Squadron[reply]
  91. Jahnx (talk) 00:24, 13 March 2008 (UTC) Signed up as member of w:Article Rescue Squadron[reply]
  92. BenA (talk) 16:14, 15 March 2008 (UTC) Signed up as member of w:Article Rescue Squadron[reply]
  93. Cel Talk to me 04:07, 16 March 2008 (UTC) This is pretty much what I do now. Signed up as member of w:Article Rescue Squadron[reply]
  94. maestrosync talk — 01:23, 17 March 2008 (UTC) Signed up as member of w:Article Rescue Squadron[reply]
  95. SilkTork *YES! 10:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC) I'm in. I have been doing this already, so it's good to know there's a collective to share ideas and alert each other to articles that need attention. Signed up as member of w:Article Rescue Squadron[reply]
  96. Diodesign (talk) 12:28, 23 March 2008 (UTC) Signed up as member of w:Article Rescue Squadron[reply]
  97. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 04:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC) Signed up as member of w:Article Rescue Squadron[reply]
  98. Kingturtle (talk) 16:40, 10 April 2008 (UTC) Signed up as member of w:Article Rescue Squadron[reply]
  99. Protonk (talk) 18:12, 27 April 2008 (UTC) Signed up as member of w:Article Rescue Squadron[reply]
  100. Macduffman (talk) 16:56, 3 May 2008 (UTC) Signed up as member of w:Article Rescue Squadron[reply]
  101. Jim Miller I didn't even know there was a project for something I've been doing anyway. With that nifty life preserver logo, what else can I do but jump right into the pool! Jim Miller (talk) 20:01, 4 June 2008 (UTC) Signed up as member of w:Article Rescue Squadron[reply]
  102. John Z (talk) 08:32, 17 June 2008 (UTC) Signed up as member of w:Article Rescue Squadron[reply]
  103. My Account (talk) 21:44, 8 July 2008 (UTC) Signed up as member of w:Article Rescue Squadron[reply]
  104. Vickser (talk) 01:31, 10 July 2008 (UTC) Signed up as member of w:Article Rescue Squadron[reply]
  105. I had never heard about this before the current MfD, and had been doing this solo for years. What can I do to help. Alansohn (talk) 21:07, 10 July 2008 (UTC) Signed up as member of w:Article Rescue Squadron[reply]
  106. I seem to be doing this already ... BMW(drive) 12:57, 20 July 2008 (UTC) Signed up as member of w:Article Rescue Squadron[reply]
  107. Ooops, forgot to sign up myself! Banjeboi 23:17, 21 July 2008 (UTC) Signed up as member of w:Article Rescue Squadron Signed up as member of w:Article Rescue Squadron[reply]
  108. Realkyhick Signed up as member of w:Wikipedia:Intensive Care Unit
  109.  — Timotab Timothy (not Tim dagnabbit!) Signed up as member of w:Wikipedia:Intensive Care Unit
  110. Boracay Bill Signed up as member of w:Wikipedia:Intensive Care Unit
  111. Nick mallory Signed up as member of w:Wikipedia:Intensive Care Unit
  112. 1redrun TalkSigned up as member of w:Wikipedia:Intensive Care Unit
  113. • nancy •Signed up as member of w:Wikipedia:Intensive Care Unit
  114. DGG (talk) 00:49, 8 September 2007 (UTC)Signed up as member of w:Wikipedia:Intensive Care Unit[reply]
  115. Helmsb Signed up as member of w:Wikipedia:Intensive Care Unit
  116. Rudget Signed up as member of w:Wikipedia:Intensive Care Unit
  117. Blueboy96 Signed up as member of w:Wikipedia:Intensive Care Unit
  118. LaMenta3 Signed up as member of w:Wikipedia:Intensive Care Unit
  119. --Darkwind (talk)Signed up as member of w:Wikipedia:Intensive Care Unit
  120. Vgranucci Signed up as member of w:Wikipedia:Intensive Care Unit
  121. Kathleen.wright5 Signed up as member of w:Wikipedia:Intensive Care Unit
  122. Bfigura (talk)Signed up as member of w:Wikipedia:Intensive Care Unit
  123. Itsmejudith 17:30, 22 September 2007 (UTC)Signed up as member of w:Wikipedia:Intensive Care Unit[reply]
  124. -- ALLSTAR ECHO 09:07, 28 September 2007 (UTC)Signed up as member of w:Wikipedia:Intensive Care Unit[reply]
  125. NickSentowski Signed up as member of w:Wikipedia:Intensive Care Unit
  126. --victor falk 14:04, 2 November 2007 (UTC) talk• ContributionsSigned up as member of w:Wikipedia:Intensive Care Unit[reply]
  127. Dc76\talk, but unfortunately I have very little time to browse regularly through AfD lists. I like to do 1-2 things at a time, not 100, so... If you need help, please leave me a note here. I can not promiss help within minutes, neither a wisard's stick, but I can be at your side and honestly help with all I can.Signed up as member of w:Wikipedia:Intensive Care Unit
  128. FW07 (talk) 17:00, 14 February 2008 (UTC)Signed up as member of w:Wikipedia:Intensive Care Unit[reply]
  129. --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:55, 24 February 2008 (UTC)Signed up as member of w:Wikipedia:Intensive Care Unit Signed up as member of w:Wikipedia:Intensive Care Unit[reply]
  130. Celarnor Talk to me 21:59, 28 March 2008 (UTC)Signed up as member of w:Wikipedia:Intensive Care Unit[reply]
  131. Protonk (talk) 19:00, 27 April 2008 (UTC)Signed up as member of w:Wikipedia:Intensive Care Unit[reply]
  132. J.T Pearson (talk)Signed up as member of w:Wikipedia:Intensive Care Unit
  133. "Honestyisbestpolicy (talk) 17:47, 18 June 2008 (UTC)"Signed up as member of w:Wikipedia:Intensive Care Unit[reply]
  134. Alx xlA (talk)Signed up as member of w:Wikipedia:Intensive Care Unit
  135. -- Tinu Cherian -Signed up as member of w:Wikipedia:Intensive Care Unit
  136. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 8 July 2005 00:56 (UTC)
  137. Kurt Weber
  138. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:42, 3 November 2005 (UTC) In protest of out of process deletion.[reply]
  139. Striver 15:18, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  140. Kappa 15:23, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  141. w:User:CyclePat --Pat 04:28, 1 December 2005 (UTC) (do check my other categories)[reply]
  142. w:User:Rogue 9 Wikipedia is not paper. People need to figure this out.
  143. Simetrical
  144. Ganeshk
  145. w:User:Ephilei yay
  146. Ste|vertigo 16:31, 7 June 2006 (UTC) - Stubbed this project, glad to see it alive.[reply]
  147. Agne27 01:21, 13 July 2006 (UTC) - a worthwhile contribution to improve Wikipedia[reply]
  148. Bunty.Gill 17:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC) - There is always a right piece of information. It only needs to be found.[reply]
  149. Badbilltucker 16:32, 7 August 2006 (UTC) - Good idea I am happy to support.[reply]
  150. Stalin.P҉G 20:06, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  151. Charles Douglas 08:06, 28 September 2006 (UTC) - I'm finding out rather quickly how intolerant of the truth some people can be.[reply]
  152. Lerner Salva veritate!
  153. Smeelgova 05:02, 21 October 2006 (UTC). I second the view of w:User:Charles Douglas above.[reply]
  154. Abeg92 16:09, 9 November 2006 (UTC). Absolutely.[reply]
  155. Split Infinity
  156. Kevin Murray
  157. Zadernet 05:21, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  158. Scepia
  159. Snowolf(talk) on 17:41, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  160. Butnotthehippo 03:48, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  161. DGG 23:13, 12 February 2007 (UTC) - (also a member of WikiProject Deletion, & consider the 2 compatible)[reply]
  162. Wl219 08:11, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  163. Dfrg.msc 22:42, 17 February 2007 (UTC) Edits = Efforts. Effort should never be wasted.[reply]
  164. Thanos6 01:53, 13 April 2007 (UTC) Everything is notable.[reply]
  165. Devin Murphy 18:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  166. T L Miles 17:28, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  167. JDG 07:57, 3 July 2007 (UTC) - Wikipedia's highest calling is to be a Compendium of Everything. High time to resist those who resist this.[reply]
  168. The Watchtower (talk) 09:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  169. Dendodge: I'm all for it! Thanks, George D. Watson (Dendodge). (talk) 22:47, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  170. Netkinetic (t/c/@) 20:31, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  171. Guitardude3600 i need help keeping my articles up
  172. — Ewald (talk|email|contrib) 20:16, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  173. Mero 02:40, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  174. Avs dps 18:52, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  175. Eequor 01:57, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  176. Everyking 02:21, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  177. Posiduck 05:34, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  178. Factitious 05:35, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  179. Bsherwin 05:49, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  180. Chabon 06:07, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  181. Einhander 06:23, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  182. BrokenSegue 21:36, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  183. Anthony DiPierro 13:36, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  184. Tmh 09:55, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  185. Seth Ilys 14:33, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  186. ShaunMacPherson 19:43, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC) I hope to save schools that are being deleted as my first mission :o)
  187. RaD Man (talk) 21:49, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC) Great to be here
  188. Mark Richards 00:45, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  189. Calmypal 00:55, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  190. Sam [Spade] 14:19, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  191. PedanticallySpeaking 16:02, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  192. Florescentbulb 19:56, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  193. Floydian 20:14, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  194. GRider 23:29, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  195. Catherine 03:05, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  196. Sunborn 02:45, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  197. L33tminion 04:53, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  198. PhilHibbs 17:03, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  199. Gene Poole 23:09, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  200. Roachgod 170.76.45.55 19:49, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  201. Arj 14:20, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  202. JRM 02:00, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC) Now it's official
  203. Kurt Kawohl
  204. Nickburns 19:06, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  205. Alkivar 06:48, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC) I really hate to pick a side, because it removes any hope of neutrality, but I guess it must be done.
  206. Tillwe 14:05, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC) More or less, at least.
  207. Cool Hand Luke 00:17, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC). I believe every high school is a worthy encyclopedia topic. (see also)
  208. --Juntung 09:59, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  209. AceMyth 09:36, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  210. Andylkl 20:35, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  211. Masterhomer 21:39, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  212. Etz Haim 01:44, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)~
  213. Dan100 14:44, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  214. Zain 13:51, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  215. Dbenbenn 03:46, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC) I realized I was an inclusionist when I voted to keep w:Kent Middle School.
  216. Verdlanco (user talk) 19:55, 2005 Jan 11 (UTC)
  217. PiccoloNamek 20:23, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  218. --Xadai 22:07, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  219. SocratesJedi 06:22, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  220. Gaurav 10:12, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  221. Foodmarket 17:16, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  222. 217.204.65.210 19:34, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC) Too much deletionism and authoritarianism on the wikipedia.
  223. Iasson 11:26, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC) I am a hardcore inclusionist. I am asking you to support me against the initialized loose majority [[1]] of the deletionists administrators of wikipedia . Have a look at my RFC[[2]]. I have been banned three times by deletionist vandals.[[[:User:Iasson#My_medals|My Medals]]].
    It is scary that you think of other editors of an online encyclopedia as "enemies". —Ben Brockert < 00:16, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    The above user is no longer a member, as long as Aphaia banned him for one year, whithout even a trial. Please check his contributions, to understand what his crime was. 213.16.157.220 16:37, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    My punishment is over. I am a little bit disapointed that nobody cared whether it was a fair or unfair one. Anyway, here I am again in meta, as an active member. :-) Iasson 21:25, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately Iasson is punished, once again, for one more year. He is also tottaly censored and not allowed to talk and defend himself. Have a look at Iasson's contributions, and judge by yourself whether those contributions deserve one year ban, or not.
    My punishment is over. Nobody, neither the inclusionist fellows cared whether it was fair or not. May the wikigod punish the ones who punished me unfairly. Iasson 10:29, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  224. CunningLinguist 01:43, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC) Keep on rockin' in the inclusionary world.
  225. Fuzz 01:45, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC) -- Because I want to let someone include an article on a bible verse (or maybe the limit should be bigger) if its encylopedic and NPOV, even though I'm definetly not religious
  226. Easyas12c 18:17, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  227. Matthewcieplak 08:50, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC) -- More knowledge is better than less knowledge. Except maybe about high schools.
  228. Spalding 22:32, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC) I had a nightmare that a very long article I had written was deleted! So I figured it was a sign for me to join the AIW.
  229. --Jijinmachina 20:30, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  230. brian0918 04:40, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  231. cfp 00:45, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC) -- Every subject is interesting to someone.
  232. Raintaster 00:25, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC) -- Nothing is too obscure for Wikipedia, somebody will want that piece of information once. Plus, I had the same experience as Spalding.
  233. Huaiwei 16:18, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC) -- Knowledge is power, and is unbound in an internet pedia. Dont like a small article? Expand it. Vain article? Rewrite it. Deleting it is the easy way out.
  234. 96T
  235. Mykola Petrenko
  236. Tomchiukc 11:51, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  237. MilesTeg 10:59, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  238. Sunny256 19:23, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  239. TUF-KAT 20:28, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  240. JCarriker 09:46, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  241. Hydriotaphia 03:38, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  242. Dystopos 17:57, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC) : "Notability" is a scale issue. Tthe scale of Wikipedia is unlimited. Other criteria are better suited for weeding out useless and unnecessary articles.
  243. Jpbrenna
  244. Esquire!
  245. --Yonghokim 19:01, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  246. Wojsyl 09:42, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  247. BaronLarf 15:18, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  248. VivaEmilyDavies 16:52, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC) -- content-inclusionist; sometimes stub-merging is a useful tool to preserve content though.
  249. 217.136.149.124 15:01, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  250. Cryoboy 22:00, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC) -- Why should we support the destroying of information?
  251. 24.60.163.16 06:17, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC) ---- VfD sometimes seems like Fahrenheit 451
  252. SV 04:16, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC) I wrote the deletion article. The stub anyway.
  253. Teknic 09:54, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC) My mom says I'm notable.
  254. McCart42 18:15, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC) See music notability.
  255. Logophile 03:13, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  256. Samaritan 23:26, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  257. Xiong 02:29, 2005 May 13 (UTC) -- moderate, but no less committed
  258. Wlievens 09:59, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  259. Exe5 00:47, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  260. Ombudsman 05:16, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  261. Babajobu 21:10, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC) Why in heaven's name should Wikipedia restrict itself to the narrow breadth of content covered in traditional enyclopedias? Go big! Be Wikicapacious!
  262. Maver1ck 07:51, 30 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  263. Mononoke 02:16, 6 Jul 2005 (UTC) Wikipedia is not paper.
    Frank Schulenburg 9 July 2005 17:00 (UTC)
  264. Kizor -- Wikipedia is not paper. 07:27, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  265. Havok - Removing anything would be contrary to the very essence which Wikipedia thrives on. All information - even if you haven't heard about, find it offensive or "not notable" - is worthy of Wikipedia.
  266. Ninuor -Wiki charta non est.
  267. Simon.Pole 06:14, 15 July 2005 (UTC) - I thought Wikipedia was supposed to be anti-elitist.[reply]
  268. Jordan Elder 16:49, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  269. Ryan 07:45, 24 July 2005 (UTC) - I think I'm home now.[reply]
    Ashmodai 16:07, 25 July 2005 (UTC) defected to AWWDMBJAWGCAWAIFDSPBATDMTD 08:48, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  270. Ombudsman 09:45, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  271. Ulayiti 20:54, 1 August 2005 (UTC) - If Wikipedia is meant to represent 'the sum of all human knowledge' (- Jimmy Wales), then deletionism are against its principle.[reply]
  272. Jossi
  273. Dovi 10:59, 9 August 2005 (UTC) I guess I'm a "moderate inclusionist": On the on hand, Wikipedia is not meant to host subjects that are absolute junk. But on the other hand, articles with future potential should not be deleted. And the "notability" criterion is far too easy to abuse, and thus hurts the aim of providing "the sum total of human knowledge." The VfD process is awful and should be banned itself. Glad I found you people.[reply]
  274. Djgranados 20:07, 9 August 2005 (UTC) Restricting Wikipedia to 'traditional' content is assigning a death sentence. Who in the world would want to use only a second rate 'traditional' encyclopedia?[reply]
  275. Mike Dillon 06:22, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  276. Celestianpower 15:17, 21 August 2005 (BST)
  277. Piecraft 06:46, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  278. HoratioVitero 16:27, 25 August 2005 (UTC) I've fought the deletionists alone before, I know now that I need backup...[reply]
  279. CincinnatiWiki 00:23, 27 August 2005. Wikipedia is a resource to find out all information, not just things that one person finds irrelevant or stupid. Deletionism is not acceptable, and it's time for Inclusionists to take over.
  280. Canadianism- Deletionist, especially exclusionist, philosophy builds a climate of ignorance for wikipedia searchers, who want a full and indepth illustration of the topic they are searcher for. Ignorance, is certainly a great societal evil.
  281. Meteusc 23:46 Aug 2005 (UTC)
  282. David Sneek September 4, 2005
  283. Maru 11 September 2005
  284. mxdxcxnx 00:32, 19 September 2005 (UTC) For the free distribution of information, even that of raw, chaotic, and unrefined nature.[reply]
  285. Kurt Weber - personification of radical extremist inclusionist.
  286. Andres 07:37, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  287. —siroχo 03:03, 27 September 2005 (UTC) About a year ago I felt like I was the only wikipedian of the inclusive persusasion on VfD, and subsequently took a several month long wikibreak. Glad to see I'm not alone.[reply]
  288. Ukdragon37 18:43, 5 October 2005 (BST) Power to intellectualism!
  289. Loki14 13:39, 7 October 2005 (UTC) Build it, and they will come... (Jim Morrison). Water all year round, then prune once a year.[reply]
  290. -- maestro t/c 06:30, 9 October 2005 (UTC) (If it is real, keep it.)[reply]
  291. ..gracefool |☺ 22:57, 11 October 2005 (UTC) because Wikipedia was originally inclusionist. More articles don't hurt, if you don't look for them, you don't find them.[reply]
  292. User:JDnCoke -- 23:47, 17 October 2005 (UTC). Being Wikiliberal compels me to join this noble cause![reply]
  293. David Cannon. I'm an inclusionist on most issues - don't want porn on Wikipedia, but otherwise stand for an inclusionist position.
  294. GreenReaper 05:33, 23 October 2005 (UTC) - I have always felt that the more information, the better. Who knows what may be of use in five year's time? There is little enough harm in keeping things around.[reply]
  295. Nick Dillinger I believe that since wikipedia is not paper, and its not a tradional encyclopedia, there's no reason not to include any true knowledge that's reasonable.
  296. JM.Beaubourg 00:36, 2 November 2005 (UTC). I'm FBI - Full-Blooded Inclusionist. Only material that might be consided explicit by some should be separate by placing them with links without displaying them, if they are needed to describe or illustrate the article.[reply]
  297. Purodha Blissenbach 14:10, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  298. Kinneyboy90 18:59, 16 November 2005 (UTC), I am tired of seeing perfectly good articles deleted by vandals. I believe we should show the deletionists a taste of their own medicine.[reply]
  299. Voyager640
  300. Rogue 9
  301. Striver 00:38, 17 December 2005 (UTC) - Argh!
  302. Azathar 03:53, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  303. Jcuk 09:55, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  304. Aleron235 21:29, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  305. Larix 01:23, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
  306. FireFox 12:44, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  307. Shanul 18:15, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  308. Inspectorpanther 18:28, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  309. Lerner 18:33, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  310. ScottHardie 03:16, 25 December 2005 (UTC) I'm getting tired of A) looking up a subject I want to know more about and finding the article deleted, and B) enjoying a particularly long article, then looking it up a few months later and finding it cut down to a fraction of its previous size. There's an ocean of knowledge out there and the deletionists want us to wade in up to our ankles.[reply]
  311. Boivie 09:41, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  312. WhyBeNormal 07:08, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  313. Terence Ong 06:27, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  314. Efezus 19:28, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  315. Simetrical 06:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  316. Devein 18:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  317. Perodicticus 11:06, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  318. Wynler 16:00, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  319. Eclipse KOG 19:15, 23 January 2006 (US EST)
  320. Primetime 02:50, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  321. Latitude0116 04:10, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  322. Pasky 02:07, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  323. Dragon695 00:56, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  324. Hermeneus 01:13, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  325. Q0 04 February 2006
  326. JAn 05. February 2006
  327. Beth Wellington 22:08, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  328. Arundhati_bakshi
  329. Piotrus 02:47, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  330. Czar Yah 8:33, 7 March 2006 (UTC) All hail this site's mighty wikicapacity!
  331. Jonathan235 Give me inclusion or give me death!
  332. Davidgn
  333. --Trogdor077 01:24, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  334. Natmaka 12:57, 16 March 2006 (UTC) French rant about this[reply]
  335. Semenko I believe that fair use images should be used to enhance biographies, and take a very broad interpretation of fair use. If no one else will profit by selling an image that is freely available on the web, why shouldn't Wikipedia be allowed to include it if nothing else is available?
  336. Kalkin 20:18, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  337. 152.163.100.67 06:50, 1 April 2006 (UTC)Carstenboswell[reply]
  338. Vadder 15:31, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  339. 128.237.228.223 06:34, 11 April 2006 (UTC) If only one person reads an article in the next hundred years, it was worth writing, and that is information that would have been withheld if deleted. Wikipedia is not paper.[reply]
  340. Perle The rampant execution of pages about small bands must be stopped! Wikipedia is not a tool of ClearChannel!
  341. Luka Jačov - include all!
  342. Charles Douglas People deserve to know all sides regarding controversial people, organizations and campaigns instead of getting spoon-fed a narrow viewpoint and pretending it is the only 'objective' one worthy of mention.
  343. Wikiwriter706 01:55, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  344. Yesterdog 00:45, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  345. Jooler - We have the potential to organize everything that can be known, let's just get on with it. - 04:12, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  346. SuperNova 06:56, 9 May 2006 (UTC), because Wikipedia is not paper.[reply]
  347. General Eisenhower (my war years) (bladerunner) (talk) 16:58, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  348. Ephilei 22 May 2006 To singularity or bust!
  349. Jessymac 18:40, 30 May 2006 (UTC) So what if an article's lying unused? Who does it hurt? Better that than needing an article that is not there. If you don't like it, expand it.[reply]
  350. Piercetp 22:06, 13 June 2006 (UTC) At last I can find a group of people who share my beliefs. Wikipedia cannot live up to its true potential unless inclusion is a policy.[reply]
  351. Derex AFD is fundamentally broken. People with no experience or demonstrated interest in fields zap articles for bogus reasons, with no grounding in policy. Very frustrating. Screw it, keep them all. 20:13, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  352. Parsssseltongue 23:40, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  353. Jsnell 18:55, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  354. Lib It is so sad when good articles, a lot of work, gets down the drain because of some fucking damn deletionist bastards! This is Wikipedia, you morons, stubs hurt none!! Radical-as-can-be-Inclusionist. 00:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  355. HamillianActor - Just starting to dip my feet, but quickly discovering my inclusionist leanings.
  356. GrowlyGenet - It's so depressing to look up something and find that a perfectly good article has been deleted because it doesn't match someone's idea of what should be valid and what shouldn't. That attitude reeks of elitism - is Wikipedia supposed to be for everyone, or just a few people who want to dictate what everyone should be interested in knowing about?
  357. Agne27 06:18, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  358. Varco
  359. Wrobertson 04:18, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  360. Kirjtc2 I'm sick and tired of seeing factual, infomative articles deleted because someone with an agenda thinks it doesn't meet some arbitrary "notability" guideline. I've seen way too many shopping mall articles deleted that way.
  361. Deansfa DeansFA 16:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  362. MrTroy 17:06, 4 Aug 2006 (CET)
  363. Johnny Rocket 16:40 4 August 2006 - Deletionism is vandalism!
  364. Simplicius 10:48, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  365. Lapin rossignol 03:31, 9 August 2006 (UTC) My vision: Wikipedia, the ultimate encyclopaedia, the ultimate website, a one-stop destination for almost all serious, verifiable information that anyone might ever possibly want to know.[reply]
  366. Miro.gal my philosphy is: when in doubt include!
  367. CFIF 18:30, 13 August 2006 (UTC) Deletion is far too rampant. Wikipedia is not paper, so when in doubt, vote Keep![reply]
  368. Denis Barthel 10:48, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  369. User:Astanhope If someone has already taken the time to write the article, why delete it? --69.173.4.186 02:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  370. Manloeste 05:09, 16 August 2006 (UTC) there should be a place for every truth in the world
  371. Mathiastck Mathiastck 18:28, 16 August 2006 (UTC) I'd like to inclue all of Everything2 in wikipedia, and vice versa, eventually.[reply]
  372. Klingoncowboy4 04:13, 24 August 2006 (UTC) The best part of wikipedia is its ability to collect information in one convenient source. If all new information is deleted then Wikipedia is useless except for long famous and thus "notable" topics.[reply]
  373. -TheblackBay 13:19, 30 August 2006 (UTC) a part of the new Third Eye[reply]
  374. I'd like to inclue all of Everything2 in wikipedia, and vice versa, eventually.
  375. Cloudreaver 18:55, 19 September 2006 (UTC) The more information, the better. My goal is to have 1,000,000,000,000 articles on Wikipedia![reply]
  376. cochese8 Deletionists are turning a great idea into another wasted opportunity
  377. Mavarin 05:45, 25 September 2006 (UTC) I just don't see how a stub, a list, or an article harms anyone or anything by its very existence, assuming it is accurate and NPOV. Maximizing available information on the entire scope of human experience is a GOOD thing. There may be cases where something is legitimately non-notable, but the bar for notability should not be unreasonably high or capriciously judged on the basis of personal taste. The fact that I don't care about something myself does not make it useless to others.[reply]
  378. Gianniv45 22:20, 4 October 2006 (UTC) Mildly radical. Pet hates: the deletionists inconsistent attitude to trivia and the value judgment inherent in notability. Oh, and oxymorons.[reply]
  379. Quendus 20:55, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  380. Zero Kid 1:06, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  381. S.dedalus 06:04, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  382. Huwmanbeing 21:08, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  383. Erielhonan 21:42, 1 November 2006 (UTC) By its very nature, Wikipedia must be large and constantly-improving. I do believe that there should be an article for everything, every concept, and every person. As an inclusionist I also advocate completionism. In practice, this means flagging your new articles as stubs until you can flesh them out, seeking references and citations for content, and helping other editors do the same by improving upon articles (stubs particularly) that they have submitted. Wikipedia is not paper. Wikipedia is a warehouse for knowledge, and a jumping-off point for research. To be this, we must include all topics and complete all articles. Obviously this is a goal and a process, and in a world of constantly evolving information it can never be perfect.[reply]
  384. terveetkadet *Right on, folks! Let's delete the deletionist, like Brianyoumans, who takes pride in the number of pages he deleted! And please help me save the Die Mannequin and Care Failure entries!
  385. CL8 01:52, 27 November 2006 (UTC) -- Delete nothing of worth, not even copyrighted materials.[reply]
  386. Endless blue 16:29, 3 December 2006 (UTC) Joining not so much to oppose Deletionism but to oppose extreme, knee-jerk Deletionism.[reply]
  387. Alt+0151 — the people hath spoken* — * apart from the vandals and ignorami, who merely make grunts and/or primitive carvings — 82.39.12.22 20:10, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  388. I am a moderate (I'm also a member of the Wikipedia Club with a Ridiculously Long Acronym) but I hate censorship, and I construct notability loosely, so...aqui estoy! Rickyrab 22:36, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  389. Jamie Guinn 14:44, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  390. Snowolfd4 14:44, 10 December 2006 (UTC) - if it contains any valuable information - KEEP[reply]
  391. Leigh8959 81.80.51.103 05:12, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  392. Mazin07 Because Wikipedia is not paper, Encarta, nor Brittanica.
  393. Dilane 05:32, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  394. Mostly Harmless 01:52, 27 November 2006 (UTC) -- Because Wiki is no paper and Czech Wikipedia too...
  395. Christopher Woods 15:11, 3 January 2007 (UTC) ... Aah, I'm home. *bask*[reply]
  396. 69.140.173.185 14:22, 7 January 2007 (UTC)... Hey, what the heck. sounds like a great idea![reply]
  397. Jonlesser 09:18, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  398. Zadernet 05:15, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  399. Snowolf01:01, 14 January 2007 (CET)
  400. Seans Potato Business 17:57, 20 January 2007 (UTC) -- I recently found information useful to me and found people were trying to have it deleted. I don't appreciate having to waste time protecting articles with my vote when I'd rather be working to improve and create articles. Deletionists and vandals may not exactly march under the same banner but it's interesting to note the similarities between the problems they both may create for Wikipedia. I'm not saying things ought never to be deleted but when the information is being searched for by people, it should stay; improve it; don't remove... it![reply]
  401. Lumos3 13:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC) I agree with improve it; don't remove.. I would only remove the wrong and the vain.
  402. Ophion 3:12, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  403. Dearingj 11:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  404. MalikCarr 02:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  405. Jérry~雨雨 17:40, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  406. JNighthawk - Just because you don't need the information doesn't mean someone else doesn't.
  407. VDZ 12:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  408. JQF 14:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC) - This is basically what I've been doing already. Nice to find an organization.[reply]
  409. 69.138.227.46 00:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  410. יחסיות האמת (Yakhasee'yoot Ha'emmet), meaning, "The Relativity of Truth" in hebrew. The Relativity of The Truth
  411. Jokestress 03:55, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  412. V60 VMTalk · VMake
  413. --Dbslikacheung 13:36, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  414. Pilotguy 22:26, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  415. Thespian [[[:w:en:User:Thespian|Thespian@Wikipedia to read some of my userpage ranting about deletion]]] 07:32, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  416. M. F. Gaede 05:27, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  417. --Naruttebayo 03:50, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  418. en:superbfc - because knowledge is power — 82.39.185.200 19:20, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  419. Rgb9000 I hereby do align myself to the philosophy of AIW. 3 April 2007
  420. fg1234567892000 10:15 18 April 2007 Because knowledge is power.
  421. Law soma 03:51, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  422. 75.120.0.42 00:07, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  423. Neutralhomer 09:47, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  424. FLengyel 15:44, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  425. Heliumballoon 11:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC) - Wikipedia is not paper, many new ideas are talked about in blogs, notability is used as an excuse for censorship, pop culture deserves to be in an encyclopedia, too many people delete an article when it is quite clear that they are completely ignorant on the subject and that quite often one needs to have a certain leval of expertise in a subject to start offering opinions about it.[reply]
  426. Bradybd 17:56, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  427. ChunkyStyle
  428. 5dsddddd 21:42, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  429. 24.193.140.51 21:40, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  430. Pharaonic 12:18, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  431. KOJV 17 June 2007    I n f o r m a t i o n   w a n t s   t o   b e   f r e e !
  432. Jmbranum 18 June 2007 I'm sick of the wikifascism that is deleting so many interesting topics. Keep wikipedia weird!
  433. Fenrisulfr 22:40, 18 June 2007 (UTC) -- Oh, and btw... in reality, there is no notability. The matrix has you.[reply]
  434. D4g0thur (joined 16:22, 23 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  435. Sozi -- 195.14.211.58 15:31, 24 June 2007 (UTC) signed as IP Now at :en -- Sozi 14:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  436. Kotare I'm an inclusionist with incrementalist leanings. Back when the english wikipedia only had 100,000 articles an article on an individual episode of "The Simpsons" would have seemed out of place and not notable enough to be included but now, with 1.86 million articles such articles don't seem out of place to me and one is even featured!
  437. Poshzombie 17:14 23 July 2007 (UTC) - Knowledge should never be destroyed. Ever. Future historians will thank you.
  438. Theopapada 16:28, 11 September 2007
  439. Melsaran 15:24, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  440. Ursasapien 05:27, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  441. --Ssr 21:49, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  442. LCExpress 17:20, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  443. Man from the Ministry 19:33, 1 December 2007 (UTC)- Deletionism is an attitude that is misguided not only in its conception of what Wikipedia is, but also of what average readers of the wiki believe it to be; which is a general collection of knowledge.[reply]
  444. SeanMD80 17:11, 21 January 2008 (UTC) -- It just seems to me that too many times people ask, "Why the hell should this be kept" and someone has to say, "Well, why the hell not?"[reply]
  445. Kingturtle 15:25, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  446. Deborahjay 13:33, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  447. Captain Infinity 17:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  448. Baronnet 01:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  449. Alaskan Assassin 04:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  450. 153.42.229.183 22:21, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  451. Michael C Price 07:45, 28 April 2008 (UTC) Improve, don't delete -- I thought it was already policy.[reply]
  452. MQDuck 08:58, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  453. giggy (:O) 23:19, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  454. Volt4ire 01:24, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  455. Machete97 22:56, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  456. Tyciol 17:48, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  457. Geosapiens 12:16, 19 July 2008 (UTC) --> It´s my position on the Portuguese Wikipedia and you dont imagine the fights about that there...[reply]
  458. Ewald 19:29, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  459. Kidburla 00:21, 24 July 2008 (UTC) If it's interesting to more than one person, then it should be kept.[reply]
  460. On Wheezier Plot 07:21, 8 September 2009 (UTC) One reason why I am not contributing to Wikipedia anymore is the same as to why I am joining this association — one of my earliest biographical article got deleted there. "Sigh!" :-( At present I am nothing more than just a Wiktionarian in the Malay Wiktionary, so I am pretty much available in improving entries rather than articles. Pardon me that I never register in Meta-Wiki due to my simplicity of not having more accounts, I'm an inclusionist.[reply]
  461. Roberto Cruz, Improve, don't delete: it's my faith!
  462. Lakkasuo, I don't actually want anything on my user page so I have to add here. If you don't like it then, sorry.

Honorary members edit

The deletionist vandals attack articles about women and children first. The deletionists' favorite templates should have a reminder added to them that there is a whole other world of people that know they are wrong. Sort of "you have the right to a lawyer" notice, else all one sees are the prison guards as one's article is dragged off to the gas chamber. There should be a list of admins ranked by the damage they do so we know who to exclude from the project when the time comes. The deletionists should be aware that all their patriotic work is for naught, as one day all those articles are coming right back. Jidanni 17:45, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Admin Members of Article Rescue Squadron edit

Note: some admins are only listed in the main members list

Member notes for Article Rescue Squadron edit

The following comment was added in relation to Member #35 on Article Rescue Squadron:

That's a great idea. Wikia already runs a wiki for this purpose, but there needs to be a related organization on Wikipedia that isn't associated with a particular company. Tlogmer ( talk / contributions ) 01:10, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Association_of_Inclusionist_Wikipedians/Members&oldid=24924761"