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
IMO you've got some odd standards for disruption, considering you once warned me I might be blocked for disruptiveness when I proposed an policy change here on the mailing list for increasing the duration of AfDs.
I wasn't exactly being serious. While I can come up with some say "interesting" interpritations of the rules I don't I could really get you under the dissruption clause for that.
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.
Now may I complain about the lack of justification the nominations provided?
In theory RFC however it would be likely yo become messy.
Here they are, for the record:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bayonne_High_Sc... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Summit_Middle_S... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Grove_School
I see no reason to mess with the ritual that is school AFds aparenty most of those takeing part are consenting adults.
-- geni