On 10/27/05, Bryan Derksen
<bryan.derksen(a)shaw.ca> wrote:
Can we disregard ComCat's nominations in the
same vein, then?
No becuase they don't appear to violate WP:POINT.
A mass copy-and-paste nomination of articles for deletion without
providing any justification isn't disruptive? 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.
Doing anything when Wikipedia is sluggish shows you
care. You know if
you want to encorage debate on AFD how about debateing. Go through and
comment rather than voteing. Decide that for a time peroid (say a
month) you are not going to vote only comment. Encourage others to the
same.
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. Now may I complain about the lack of
justification the nominations provided?
Here they are, for the record: