geni wrote:
On 10/27/05, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
A mass copy-and-paste nomination of articles for deletion without providing any justification isn't disruptive?
However I can't show that they are doing it to make a point
And you can't in my case either, because I really do have a reason why I think those nominations should fail to delete those articles. I don't vote "keep" unless I mean it.
Anyway, this back and forth POINTing isn't really furthering the discussion of AfD's problems. If you want to "get" me under some rule or another, go ahead; I won't argue it here.
I've now gone through all of my ComCat-nomination votes and expanded on them with more extensive comments. Turns out that my initial instincts were completely correct, after due reconsideration all of my votes stayed "keep" (with one exception where I mistook a "NN,D" _vote_ by ComCat as a _nomination_ instead - the actual nomination was reasonable). Plenty of fodder for debate there, and plenty of effort spent to back up my position.
I'd bet tempted to go a stage further and not vote at all.
Why shouldn't I vote when I've got perfectly good reasons for casting a vote? I really don't think that those AfDs should result in "delete", and so I voted that they should result in "keep". Seems quite straightforard. I'd vote "no deletion" instead, except I have no idea how the closers will interpret that whereas "keep" has a pretty clear prodivdence and means almost the same thing.