geni wrote:
On 10/27/05, Bryan Derksen
<bryan.derksen(a)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.