geni wrote:
On 10/27/05, Bryan Derksen
<bryan.derksen(a)shaw.ca> wrote:
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.
Can we disregard ComCat's nominations in the same vein, then? My point
is that the number of clicks isn't relevant to the amount of effort the
nomination itself reflects. If I'd cast my votes using an elabourate
system of voice-to-speech hex editing via a telnet session, or whatever,
that doesn't make what I wrote any more or less valid.
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.
"NN, D" provides no information on which to make a case. And if
Wikipedia's sluggishness is irrelevant, once an edit window is open
there isn't any further communication with the webserver until "save
changes" is clicked. There's plenty of time to type up a justification
for one's vote. If there isn't time for other reasons, then why not wait
until there _is_ time? There isn't a deadline.