Jump to content
Wikimedia Meta-Wiki

Association of Mergist Wikipedians/Members

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki

Add your name here if you want to join this association:

  1. Reene (リニ) 19:28, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  2. Joyous 23:31, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  3. Gtrmp 02:20, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  4. Anthony DiPierro 15:45, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  5. Sam [Spade] 16:44, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  6. Neutrality 00:17, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  7. Tyln 09:01, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  8. Tony Sidaway 16:39, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  9. JRM 14:43, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC) I'm inclusionist on information, not articles
  10. Johnleemk 12:52, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC) If a topic is encyclopedic, it should be in Wikipedia in some form. I don't tend to extreme mergism, though; I believe there's a division among encyclopedic topics, too: Those that deserve their own article, and those that don't. Otherwise, we might as well either compile everything into one page (Wikipedia is not paper!) or split each sentence into its own page (Wikipedia is not paper!).
  11. Dpbsmith 02:52, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  12. JFW T@lk 03:29, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC) (I'm a mergist deletionist - delete whatever cannot be merged)
  13. Craigy144 00:15, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  14. Josh 07:23, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
  15. Rmrfstar 02:28, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC) -- organization with a little discrimination
  16. VivaEmilyDavies 16:54, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  17. Cryoboy 18:00 ,18 Apr 2005
  18. BrokenSegue 22:02, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  19. Faethon7 12:52, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  20. Randy Johnston 22:28, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  21. Francesco
  22. Jondel 08:59, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC) Delete garbage, include mistakenly deleted notables!
  23. Mindspillage 02:51, 20 May 2005 (UTC) Information needs enough context to make it useful.[reply ]
  24. Android79 03:48, 22 May 2005 (UTC) [reply ]
  25. MarSch 15:02, 26 May 2005 (UTC) see my merging masterpiece at w:bijection, injection and surjection [reply ]
  26. Ganymead 19:14, 28 May 2005 (UTC) Mergist with deletionist tendencies.[reply ]
  27. Chameleon 14:12, 29 May 2005 (UTC) [reply ]
  28. Neonumbers 11:49, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  29. Lifeisunfair 02:15, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC) — Common sense must prevail.
  30. Gemini6Ice 00:56, 29 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  31. Klaas `Z4␟` V: 06:17, 30 Jun 2005 (UTC) To merge or not to merge
  32. Quinobi 7 July 2005 11:38 (UTC) emergency management
  33. Omegatron 21:35, 14 July 2005 (UTC) - This Association should be merged with Association of Wikipedians [reply ]
  34. --Mddake 01:04, 2 August 2005 (UTC) Moderation is probably a good thing.[reply ]
  35. Gate2Valusia 02:47, 19 August 2005 (UTC) Lately, I've been merging a lot of Cthulhu mythos stubs in Wikipedia, so I guess that makes me a mergist. My belief is that the longer an article remains a stub, the more likely it is that it will be deleted in the future. Many stub articles can probably never be expanded anyway (and this is especially true of fantasy stubs); thus, merging them into another article is probably the best way to preserve them. Furthermore, a merged article, containing lots of integrated pieces (i.e., former stubs) is less likely to get the proverbial axe! (BTW: Here are some articles I created by merging stubs: Wikipedia:Celestial bodies (Cthulhu mythos), Wikipedia:Arcane literature (Cthulhu mythos), Wikipedia:Deep One (Cthulhu mythos).)[reply ]
  36. Alphax, but I'm also a member of the AWWDMBJAWGCAWAIFDSPBATDMTD.
  37. Karmafist 04:49, 26 October 2005 (UTC) I should also join awewakosdkmasdvlkatrtd, or whatever it is...[reply ]
  38. Jacqui ★ 01:41, 28 October 2005 (UTC) I lean toward inclusion of most verifiable information and deletion of advertisements and POV forks. I believe merging to be one one of many ways that help users find information.[reply ]
  39. Mgm|(talk) 10:57, 29 October 2005 (UTC) (also member of AWWDMBJAWGCAWAIFDSPBATDMTD).[reply ]
  40. Puzzlet Chung 19:45, 30 October 2005 (UTC) [reply ]
  41. Mysekurity 07:35, 5 November 2005 (UTC) Like those above, I too am a member of that really long name thing (see above, I don't feel like copy-pasting).[reply ]
  42. Ξxtreme Unction 18:09, 11 November 2005 (UTC) ∾ I am either a Mergist with strong Deletionist tendencies, or a Deletionist with strong Mergist tendencies. I suspect the latter, though I do have a high tolerance for pop-culture-related articles, especially those about computer gaming and genre fiction. However, I am absolutely croggled that we have individual articles for every freakin' mini-game ever to appear on The Price is Right . I don't think I want to live in a world where there's an individual Wikipedia article for every one of those games.[reply ]
  43. Just zis Guy, you know?, 13:41, 12 November 2005 (UTC), as a mergist for real info (including not-independantly-notable schools) and a deletionist for spam, bandcruft and listcruft.[reply ]
  44. Cpritchett42 22:17, 20 November 2005 (UTC) Just keep mergin'.[reply ]
  45. Dna-webmaster 05:08, 25 November 2005 (UTC) I didn't realise I was a Mergist until I found this group! Include me, and do not delete me, since I am neither Inclusionist nor Deletionist...[reply ]
  46. --||bass 21:13, 29 November 2005 (UTC) [reply ]
  47. Jokermage 16:31, 6 December 2005 (UTC) [reply ]
  48. I'd like to put my name at the top, but I suspect that would be considered "cheating" or something... Keenan Pepper 23:25, 6 December 2005 (UTC) [reply ]
  49. Sjschen 23:53, 10 December 2005 (UTC) I'm in.[reply ]
  50. — Jeff WP | (talk) | 02:16, 24 December 2005 (UTC): Information is better in context.[reply ]
  51. McNeight 00:11, 4 January 2006 (UTC): Already an unofficial member.[reply ]
  52. Quarl 2006年01月04日 14:10 UTC
  53. Imperialles 12:30, 5 February 2006 (UTC) [reply ]
  54. FloNight 05:56, 6 February 2006 (UTC) Many Afd really needed merge[reply ]
  55. Anglius 01:51, 7 February 2006 (UTC) [reply ]
  56. -Chairman S. 08:23, 11 February 2006 (UTC) [reply ]
  57. Grön 07:42, 20 February 2006 (UTC) [reply ]
  58. Haza-w A firm mergist at heart. 20:28, 21 February 2006 (UTC) [reply ]
  59. Cymsdale 23:05, 1 March 2006 (UTC) [reply ]
  60. Eleassar my talk 12:54, 29 April 2006 (UTC) [reply ]
  61. DVD R W 00:48, 8 May 2006 (UTC) [reply ]
  62. Kukini 15:13, 11 May 2006 (UTC) Another joiner.[reply ]
  63. Kruosio 15:19, 25 May 2006 (UTC) [reply ]
  64. SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib]
  65. Trysha 19:30, 21 September 2006 (UTC) I Like it.[reply ]
  66. Koweja 18:09, 20 November 2006 (UTC) [reply ]
  67. SilkTork 20:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC) [reply ]
  68. ◄ Zahakiel ► 23:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC) [reply ]
  69. Noclevername 21:33, 11 March 2007 (UTC) [reply ]
  70. It is better to have fewer but high quality articles than many low quality ones. --James, La gloria è a dio 22:32, 18 March 2007 (UTC) [reply ]
  71. Flex 15:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC) [reply ]
  72. --Benfeig 22:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC) [reply ]
  73. Gribeco 03:22, 21 May 2007 (UTC) Deep Down, You Know Mergism Makes Most Sense.[reply ]
  74. Raskolnikov 08:06, 21 August 2007 (UTC) [reply ]
  75. Cailil 15:37, 1 September 2007 (UTC) [reply ]
  76. habj 19:00, 12 November 2007 (UTC) [reply ]
  77. --MiCkE d b 19:10, 12 November 2007 (UTC) [reply ]
  78. Marcelobbr 16:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC) [reply ]
  79. Terra What do you want? 11:39, 1 March 2008 (UTC) [reply ]
  80. RachelSummers77 18:45, 2 March 2008 (UTC) [reply ]
  81. StefanB 16:23, 16 March 2008 (UTC) [reply ]
  82. Buster7 7 May 2008 (UTC) Who knows what information JANE will need to save the Galaxy?
  83. Arkuat 08:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC) See en:User_talk:Arkuat#Thinking about Mergism.[reply ]
  84. Tyciol 18:16, 19 June 2008 (UTC) [reply ]
  85. Leo Johannes 15:34, 1 August 2008 (UTC) Also deletionist.[reply ]
  86. Ipatrol 19:46, 22 October 2008 (UTC) [reply ]
  87. --Cmputer 18:12, 6 December 2008 (UTC) [reply ]
  88. Kyng 22:32, 30 January 2009
  89. Jnnnnn 05:52, 8 February 2009 (UTC) [reply ]
  90. FingersOnRoids 17:00, 21 February 2009 (UTC) Merging is a good thing.[reply ]
  91. Zxcvbnm 22:31, 2 March 2009 (UTC) [reply ]
  92. Alvin Seville 21:50, 1 April 2009 (UTC) [reply ]
  93. OlEnglish 18:57, 26 May 2009 (UTC) Oh definitely. Here's to a lot less one-sentence stubs, and a lot more detailed articles.[reply ]
  94. –blurpeace (talk) 11:12, 13 September 2009 (UTC) [reply ]
  95. 87.102.6.15 21:14, 17 November 2009 (UTC) [reply ]
  96. User:Åkebråke 9 December 2009
  97. Fiftytwo thirty 00:25, 28 February 2010 (UTC) [reply ]
  98. Fridae'sDoom 02:09, 6 July 2010 (UTC) [reply ]
  99. Siar Fisher ttttttttt 21:11, 25 November 2010 (UTC) [reply ]
  100. Sreifa 08:02, 5 December 2010 (UTC) [reply ]
  101. Vibhijain 09:37, 3 June 2011 (UTC) [reply ]
  102. Adamantane 08:57, 7 September 2011 (UTC) [reply ]
  103. Rion 21:40, 10 January 2012 (UTC) [reply ]
  104. Karl.brown (talk) 16:22, 26 March 2012 (UTC) [reply ]
  105. Bleakgh (talk) 19:38, 3 June 2012 (UTC) [reply ]
  106. Kbog (talk) 19:46, 2 December 2012 (UTC) [reply ]
  107. GreggEdwards Both Splits and Merges contribute to a balanced Nuome. These represent one dimension of Cognitive Style sensu Herman Witkin. He observed that one dimension was Lumpers vs. Splitters, also strongly correlated with Elaborators vs. Skeletonizers. These tendencies seem roughly heritable, so by some interpretations of evolutionary genetics, both contribute to collective fitness. Note that the Encyclopedia Britanica had both approaches working together: the Macropedia (Lumper), and the Micropedia (Splitter). Most successful books in the form of a Thesaurus also combine approaches to serve both: the Category list (Lumper), and the Index (Splitter); Roget's Thesaurus gave equal space to both. The more highly rated reviews of thesauri at Amazon.com strongly testify to the value of using the two approaches together.
  108. GenQuest "Talk to Me" 20:00, 03 January 2013 (UTC); Making it official since I've been maintaining the Proposed Mergers Noticeboard since the end of 2012. I like to preserve the referenced work in merged articles, and will discard the rest if clear references are not immediately available. I like to teach others how merging should happen. I am working on the 2.5+ year backlog, too, as time allows.[reply ]
  109. IsmaelLuceno (talk) 20:56, 12 May 2013 (UTC) [reply ]
  110. APerson241 (talk) 02:12, 20 June 2013 (UTC) [reply ]
  111. User:Skr15081997 (talk) 12:52,16 December 2013 (UTC)
  112. AnAwesomeArticleEditor (talk) 21:16, 14 June 2017 (UTC) [reply ]
  113. MattLongCT (talk) 05:32, 7 January 2018 (UTC) [reply ]
  114. Path slopu--08:53, 10 September 2018 (UTC) [reply ]
  115. Doug Mehus (talk) --Dmehus (talk) 19:26, 9 October 2019 (UTC) [reply ]
  116. 209.122.217.93 17:20, 27 April 2020 (UTC) [reply ]
  117. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 19:34, 10 October 2020 (UTC) [reply ]
  118. Chetvorno (talk) I feel we have to be mergist to counter a strong splitting tendency, mainly among new editors, which has become obvious to me during my 15 years on WP. If an editor adds a section to an existing article, he has to collaborate with the article's previous editors, who often know more than he does about the subject or WP content creation and often interfere or take the job away from him. If he instead creates a new article, he gets to write it himself, without interference. He also gets to list it on his brag page. This is a big ego boost for new editors. His ownership of the new article also motivates him to fight merger attempts, regardless of how deserving.
  119. SpiralSource (talk) 08:56, 7 February 2022 (UTC) [reply ]
  120. Justin.chan.hk Wikipedia is not paper! There is no harm leaving knowledge that are slightly under the criteria. Try merging is definitely a good way to preserve them! Justin.chan.hk (talk) 02:43, 10 July 2022 (UTC) [reply ]
  121. Jan Steinbauer 2023
  122. Lunaroxas (talk) 04:51, 17 September 2023 (UTC).[reply ]
  123. User:Icandostuff
  124. Robertjamal12 ~🔔 16:41, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
  125. Choucas Bleu (talk) 17:38, 12 March 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

AltStyle によって変換されたページ (->オリジナル) /