User:Andrewa/minimum waste of time

The goal of Wikipedia is to build an encyclopedia.

In many of the administrative tasks involved, it's necessary to minimise waste of time and not get distracted into debates that have no bearing on the goal. This or minimum waste of time may be abbreviated MWOT and pronounced mmmmm... what?.

Examples
(this section will grow I guess)

'''NB: The responses shown below are fairly aggressive, for the purposes of making this essay entertaining and hopefully constructive. In actually replying to a contributor during an RM, AfD etc discussion, be a lot gentler. Aggressive responses may violate several policies and guidelines, including but not only WP:AGF, WP:NPA and WP:BITE. They may even lead to you being censured yourself. But most important, they normally don't help to build either the encyclopedia or the community that supports it. TIA.'''


 * Example of a very, very common mistake in RMs... FXGM was the original name of this brand, and we should revert to that because recently the brand name has changed from FX Global Markets to FXGM. Response: No we shouldn't, as you would know had you bothered to read WP:AT as you were urged to do before raising the RM, in several prominent places that you could hardly have missed. You couldn't be bothered. So neither should we be. It's quite OK as is, probably better than if moved in fact.
 * Unsigned comment from a VfD debate: * I guess you'd have to really know more about the culture at the University of Wolverhampton. But you don't, do you? Response: No, we don't need to know. And neither do our readers unless this material is attested in reliable secondary sources, or not from us, anyway. Delete.
 * Another comment from VfD: I suggest: simple majority, decision valid until this or another poll says otherwise, minimum voters 12 in 7 days. Response: Pointless suggestion, existing policies will decide the vote. If you want to change the policy, then procedures exist for that too, as you have repeatedly been told by many Wikipedians.
 * And again from VfD discussion: you can't just delete a page because your sources don't show it. Response: We can and do. And did.
 * Template:VfD-BunchOfXena - 30 almost certainly fan-fic Xena articles. One lifetime. Verify? Not a chance. Delete 'em all, and if there was anything useful in there, life will go on.
 * From Votes for deletion/Cocaine use in Brasil: Keep. Sources on the talk page did you check themWiki brah 04:53, 26 August 2005 (UTC). No, I didn't check them, but I did check Votes for deletion/Helicopter use in Brasil, Pages for deletion/Anal Sex in Brasil, and especially Pages for deletion/Bisexuality in Brazil where your other prank pages were discussed. We assume good faith but we don't continue to believe it in the wake of such overwhelming evidence.
 * From User talk:Jason Gastrich: The sockpuppet allegations are absurd. What was the result of the "check user" (which checks IP addresses)? Last time I checked, there was no word at all. Therefore, all of these sockpuppet allegations are assumptions by people like User:JzG and User:Arbustoo. What's worse, they've assumed that they were right while indefinitely blocking people's accounts for no other reason. Response: The allegations are a pretty good guess. You've shown no inclination to support of even understand the aims of Wikipedia, just to steal our resources to promote your own views - at which you have been clever and industrious. But it won't work.
 * Many, many unilateral moves while a discussion is underway at WP:RM... ignore them unless really vile, get a rough consensus as per procedures, and then move the page to the agreed name. And occasionally then protect the page temporarily if it doesn't stick.
 * From an RM: Support, as clearly the correct title (i was very surprised to see this listed, so much would i have expected Yahwist to be the title ~ almost none of the literature has Jahwist, nor has done for years)... Response: Evidence that it's correct? That last point is interesting and relevant, if substantiated, and not otherwise. The opinions that preceded it aren't even particularly interesting, so you'll be lucky if the closing admin even reads that last bit. And rightly so, best to just disregard this "vote". If you can't be bothered making a case in terms of WP:AT then why waste time on your irrelevant opinions and unsubstantiated claims?
 * From an RM: No, what you actually mean is that you disagree with those interpretations. I'm pretty sure that my interpretation, for example, is valid. I'd be happy to explain it further if you don't understand it. (Their emphasis.) Response: Best to not even dignify such quibbling with a reply. I meant what I said, not what you'd like me to have said, and I think I understand your interpretation, and you're right that I disagree with it, as did several others, including the closing admin. What you actually mean is that you don't like it. Tough.

Boilerplates

 * minimise waste of time
 * minimum waste of time
 * MWOT
 * minimize waste of time
 * MWOT