Wikipedia talk:Don't object to proposals

Objecting to this essay is strongly discouraged, per WP:DOTP – Gurch 22:36, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Objection, Your Honor... *Dan T.* 00:36, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see what everyone else says first then support or oppose this essay, I can't be bothered with actually reading this. :-D daveh4h 06:10, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I have to make a fictional scenario, it's what I do to proposals

What would happen if this was followed at the founding of VfD?

I think that there should be a process to discuss if pages should be deleted. So, we have a discussion page, with support and oppose section, and whichever side gets a majority happens. -User:onoesiissmart 00:52, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. User:Agreementwithu1 00:52, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. User:Agreementwithu2 00:52, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. User:Agreementwithu3 00:52, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. User:Agreementwithu4 00:52, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. User:Agreementwithu5 00:52, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um... this is a terrible idea. A strict vote-counting system is too easily gameable, and even if it weren't, 51% is a terrible standard for deletion. I agree with the sentiment of discussing deletions, but this is not the way to do it. -User:Iactuallyevaluatemorethanbroadsubstance 00:52, 29 May 2007 (UTC) (struck out, I realize that this violates WP:DOTP)[reply]

Yaaaaay. -Amarkov moo! 00:52, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I'm reading this right, it's not 'don't object to any proposals', it's 'don't object to proposals you agree with in spirit.' It's kind of misleading and needs a rewrite though. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 08:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's neither of those. It's "don't object to proposals that have a significant level of support" – it explicitly says so just before the bold text. In this case, being an obviously bad proposal with no support none of this would apply. Being first to comment on a proposal is something else that should be avoided, but I won't go into that further :) – Gurch 22:36, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But it isn't an obviously bad proposal. We elect the government this way, so it's not obvious that this is a bad idea. -Amarkov moo! 22:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]