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