Association of Inclusionist Wikipedians/Members

Add links
From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
< Association of Inclusionist Wikipedians
This is an archived version of this page, as edited by Endomion~metawiki (talk | contribs) at 04:21, 24 December 2005 (User is a deletionist now). It may differ significantly from the current version.
  1. Mero 02:40, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  2. Eequor 01:57, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  3. Everyking 02:21, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  4. Posiduck 05:34, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  5. Factitious 05:35, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  6. Bsherwin 05:49, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  7. Chabon 06:07, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  8. Einhander 06:23, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  9. BrokenSegue 21:36, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  10. Anthony DiPierro 13:36, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  11. Tmh 09:55, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  12. Seth Ilys 14:33, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  13. ShaunMacPherson 19:43, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC) I hope to save schools that are being deleted as my first mission :o)
  14. RaD Man (talk) 21:49, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC) Great to be here
  15. Mark Richards 00:45, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  16. Calmypal 00:55, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  17. Sam [Spade] 14:19, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  18. PedanticallySpeaking 16:02, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  19. Florescentbulb 19:56, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  20. Floydian 20:14, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  21. GRider 23:29, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  22. Catherine 03:05, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  23. Sunborn 02:45, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  24. L33tminion 04:53, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  25. PhilHibbs 17:03, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  26. Gene Poole 23:09, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  27. Roachgod 170.76.45.55 19:49, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  28. Arj 14:20, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  29. JRM 02:00, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC) Now it's official
  30. Kurt Kawohl
  31. Nickburns 19:06, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  32. 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.
  33. Tillwe 14:05, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC) More or less, at least.
  34. Cool Hand Luke 00:17, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC). I believe every high school is a worthy encyclopedia topic. (see also)
  35. --Juntung 09:59, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  36. AceMyth 09:36, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  37. Andylkl 20:35, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  38. Masterhomer 21:39, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  39. Etz Haim 01:44, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)~
  40. Dan100 14:44, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  41. Zain 13:51, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  42. Dbenbenn 03:46, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC) I realized I was an inclusionist when I voted to keep w:Kent Middle School.
  43. Verdlanco (user talk) 19:55, 2005 Jan 11 (UTC)
  44. PiccoloNamek 20:23, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  45. --Xadai 22:07, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  46. SocratesJedi 06:22, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  47. Gaurav 10:12, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  48. Foodmarket 17:16, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  49. 217.204.65.210 19:34, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC) Too much deletionism and authoritarianism on the wikipedia.
  50. 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.[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)
  51. CunningLinguist 01:43, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC) Keep on rockin' in the inclusionary world.
  52. 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
  53. Easyas12c 18:17, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  54. Matthewcieplak 08:50, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC) -- More knowledge is better than less knowledge. Except maybe about high schools.
  55. 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.
  56. --Jijinmachina 20:30, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  57. brian0918 04:40, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  58. cfp 00:45, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC) -- Every subject is interesting to someone.
  59. 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.
  60. 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.
  61. 96T
  62. Mykola Petrenko
  63. Tomchiukc 11:51, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  64. MilesTeg 10:59, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  65. Sunny256 19:23, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  66. TUF-KAT 20:28, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  67. JCarriker 09:46, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  68. Hydriotaphia 03:38, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  69. 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.
  70. Jpbrenna
  71. Esquire!
  72. --Yonghokim 19:01, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  73. Wojsyl 09:42, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  74. BaronLarf 15:18, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  75. VivaEmilyDavies 16:52, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC) -- content-inclusionist; sometimes stub-merging is a useful tool to preserve content though.
  76. 217.136.149.124 15:01, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  77. Cryoboy 22:00, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC) -- Why should we support the destroying of information?
  78. 24.60.163.16 06:17, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC) ---- VfD sometimes seems like Fahrenheit 451
  79. SV 04:16, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC) I wrote the deletion article. The stub anyway.
  80. Teknic 09:54, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC) My mom says I'm notable.
  81. McCart42 18:15, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC) See music notability.
  82. Logophile 03:13, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  83. Samaritan 23:26, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Xiong 02:29, 2005 May 13 (UTC) -- moderate, but no less committed
  85. Wlievens 09:59, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Exe5 00:47, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Ombudsman 05:16, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  88. 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!
  89. Maver1ck 07:51, 30 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  90. Mononoke 02:16, 6 Jul 2005 (UTC) Wikipedia is not paper.
  91. Frank Schulenburg 9 July 2005 17:00 (UTC)
  92. Kizor -- Wikipedia is not paper. 07:27, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  93. 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.
  94. Ninuor ―Wiki charta non est.
  95. Simon.Pole 06:14, 15 July 2005 (UTC) - I thought Wikipedia was supposed to be anti-elitist.[reply]
  96. Jordan Elder 16:49, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  97. Ryan 07:45, 24 July 2005 (UTC) - I think I'm home now.[reply]
  98. Ashmodai 16:07, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  99. Ombudsman 09:45, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  100. 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]
  101. Jossi
  102. 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]
  103. 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]
  104. Mike Dillon 06:22, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  105. Celestianpower 15:17, 21 August 2005 (BST)
  106. Piecraft 06:46, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  107. HoratioVitero 16:27, 25 August 2005 (UTC) I've fought the deletionists alone before, I know now that I need backup...[reply]
  108. 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.
  109. 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.
  110. Meteusc 23:46 Aug 2005 (UTC)
  111. David Sneek September 4, 2005
  112. Maru 11 September 2005
  113. mxdxcxnx 00:32, 19 September 2005 (UTC) For the free distribution of information, even that of raw, chaotic, and unrefined nature.[reply]
  114. Kurt Weber - personification of radical extremist inclusionist.
  115. Andres 07:37, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  116. —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]
  117. Ukdragon37 18:43, 5 October 2005 (BST) Power to intellectualism!
  118. 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]
  119. — mæstro t/c 06:30, 9 October 2005 (UTC) (If it is real, keep it.)[reply]
  120. ··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]
  121. User:JDnCoke -- 23:47, 17 October 2005 (UTC). Being Wikiliberal compels me to join this noble cause![reply]
  122. David Cannon. I'm an inclusionist on most issues - don't want porn on Wikipedia, but otherwise stand for an inclusionist position.
  123. 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]
  124. 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.
  125. 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]
  126. Purodha Blissenbach 14:10, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  127. Trevdna 08:12, 11 November 2005 (UTC) Wikipedia's main goal should be to become a repository of all human knowledge - it is not a paper encyclopedia, and so there should be no limits. In the case of an apocolyptic showdown, where the only surviving human knowledge was located in Wikipedia, wouldn't we want as much knowledge left as possible? (That's one way of looking at it, at least.)[reply]
  128. 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]
  129. Mushroom 07:00, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  130. Voyager640
  131. Meegs 20:14, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  132. Rogue 9
  133. Striver 00:38, 17 December 2005 (UTC) - Argh![reply]
  134. Jcuk 09:55, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  135. Aleron235 21:29, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  136. Larix 01:23, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  137. FireFox 12:44, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  138. Shanul 18:15, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  139. Inspectorpanther 18:28, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  140. Lerner 18:33, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Honorary members

Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Association_of_Inclusionist_Wikipedians/Members&oldid=259183"