Talk: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/Archives/2006

Donation

I, Cmputer, hereby donate ¤100 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 still LOVE the title). Enjoy! --Cmputer 11:30 AM, 6 December 2008, Central Standard Time (By the way, this was, and is, a great idea.)

Brilliant. Shii, you've outdone yourself this time. Humblefool 23:47, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This is definetly the most amazing thing i have seen on wikimedia or even wikipedia. Falphin 01:19, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think I'm becoming a redirectionist. Redirects rock. But there's no Association of Redirectionist Wikipedians, which makes me sad. Someone make it. I'll join. Proto 15:29, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

delete - BJAODN. Absurd but doesn't warrant a Wikipedia page. --65.92.161.97 20:12, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

You can do that?? In that case, someone needs to slap one on Association of Conservative Semi-Prejudicial Wikipedians. We should not allow organizations dedicated to maintaining a particular POV. — Omegatron 21:45, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

delete - But that doesn't make me a Deletionist ;) 72.130.177.20 05:51, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

keep - Dear IP number, this is NOT Wikipedia, this is Wikimedia. If it offends or hinders you, get the hell out. Steinbach (formerly Caesarion) 12:47, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Strong Delete. The name (and abbreviation is far to long! Instant delete! --86.22.139.93 17:03, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

• When are all of you going to realise that this is meta, not Wikipedia? And that the rules as valid on en: DO NOT APPLY HERE? This is an entirely different wiki, used as a reference for ALL Wikimedia projects, it is not a dependancy of the English Wikipedia! ! ! Steinbach (formerly Caesarion) 09:36, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

STRONG KEEP - I hate all Deletonists! Don't delete the article, even if it is wierd! 209.195.102.143 18:55, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Weak speedy keep. I have a weak opinion that this article should be kept, but I believe strongly that it should be kept speedily. 71.201.53.112 22:10, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

New Party on WP- Exclusionism -you know it makes sense!

I appeal to all members of your association (whose name is tool ong to write) to consider joining my recently formed party on WP. It is called the Exclusionist Party (at the moment). As I am not a member of Meta I cant sign in but my user name on WP is 'Light current'. Please leave messages of support/condemnation/abuse on the exclusionist talk page. You know it makes sense to join my party!! 88.110.101.169 16:04, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Page move?

Shouldn't this be at Association of Wikipedians Who Dislike Making Broad Judgements 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 Deletionist. Surely, we're bringing riduicule on ourselves with our dodgy grasp of capitals. Flowerparty 12:17, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Isn't this a bad article? Why don't you delete it then?

Don't know. I wouldn't like to make that kind of broad judgement. Flowerparty 11:28, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

w:Wikipedia:Ignore all rules especially looney caps rules Ashibaka 05:28, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Or, alternately, w:Be bold. I fixed the title. Matt Yeager 22:45, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I tend to disagree with that decision, on grounds that the AWWDMBJAWGCAWAIFDSPBATDMTD acronym is well established within the article and the accompanying graphic. This would require a change to AWWDMBJAWGCAWAIFDSPBATDMTAD throughout, which is rather a lot of trouble. Shmuel 13:45, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Shorter Title? that's annoyingly long. --4.233.125.153 19:18, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

One person's "annoying" is another person's "charming." Shmuel 13:45, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I wonder what a birthday cake for the association would be like—plenty of room for candles. 210.49.129.145 19:07, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Satire?

I do not understand if this association is made in jest or truth, it seemes to me all the title says is that these people delete articles but don't want to be blamed for it. Perhaps they are deletionist and perhaps they are not, but the title makes them sound like they are, for why else deny it.

No, clearly you misunderstood it. Someone might want to delete some articles but unlike the deletionists he does not want to delete loads of articles just because he thinks they don't belong in Wikipedia. These are people that like to keep the Middle of the Road and the nuance.

For example: consider an article like this (obviously the names are nonsensical):

Xyzmiba is a vilige in Karakistan att Hokipok rivver of 245 inhabitants.

Well: deletionists would say: "delete it. It's written in very poor English, it gives little information and such small villages are uninteristing for the English Wikipedia"

Inclusionists would say: "keep it. It covers a relevant subject (ok, not really in this case, of course...) and the article gives at least some information. Correct the errors and wikify it".

Members of the AWWDMBJAWGCAWAFDSPBATDMTAD would say: "Well, we should at least correct and wikify this article, and then look if we can make it into something better. If not, add the {stub}-notice." What they do is judging every case independently from others, rather than blindly relying on dogmas or policies. Steinbach (formerly Caesarion) 11:52, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I propose a fourth option: list it as a featured article and put a summary of it on the main page. That way, we don't discriminate against merit, and bring joy to the inhabitants of Xyzmiba; not to mention the valuable attention the article would receive, affording it the opportunity of improvement. As the association's secratary, I am putting this fourth option on our agenda. 210.49.129.145 19:14, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

This is scary. {Signed: Fredil Yupigo on Wikipedia

Grammar

Er, in keeping with that article titles (and indeed names of organizations, fictional/satirical or otherwise) are generally supposed to be noun phrases, I feel I must point out that the name of this organization contains a rather hideous grammatical error in that it contains an independent clause attached to a noun phrase by a conjunction - a construction, regrettably, both grating and nonsensical - which effrontery might be remedied by, among other avenues of redress, the consideration 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, Which Views Do Not, However, Portend Them to Be Deletionist" as a revised and amended nomenclature, vagaries of capitalization and punctuation notwithstanding. Regards. 59.92.136.159 07:00, 30 December 2006 (UTC)