On 10/27/05, Bryan Derksen <bryan.derksen(a)shaw.ca> wrote:
geni wrote:
On 10/27/05, Bryan Derksen
<bryan.derksen(a)shaw.ca> wrote:
Nevermind that I probably spent more effort on
my votes than the nominator did....
Unlikely. Nomitateing involves:
1)finding the article. This has been made easy for you
2)typeing {{Subst:ADF}} a the top of the page
3a) If you are me looking up the instructions on how to list something
4)typeing in reason
5)listing.
So the person at a minium edited 3 pages. How many did you edit?
One edit for each VfD, obviously, but I don't see how the number of
edits one has to make in the course of sticking "NN, D" on a page makes
"NN, D" any more meaningful. Should my vote be disregarded because I
didn't put enough effort into provide adequate evidence that I'd
considered the case and had a valid reason for voting the way I did? If
so, I would gladly withdraw those poorly-supported votes I made since
that's exactly the thing I was complaining about in the first place. A
policy like that would remove the whole basis of my objection.
No it shoulds be dissregarded because WP:POINT. I take it you conceed
that the nominator did in fact take more effort to nominate than you
did to vote.
As it is there's probably one or two of those
articles that I will be
going back and retracting my "keeps" for based on other peoples' more
detailed comments in response to these nominations. But those "keeps"
were IMO a reasonable default reaction to this kind of nonsense.
Can you prove it is nonsense? Today hasn't been the best day for
wikipedia running times. Listing things on AFD under those conditions
is a pain.
--
geni