On 10/27/05, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
geni wrote:
On 10/27/05, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@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