Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:24, 11 April 2008

15 January 2025
From the editors: Looking back, looking forward Traffic report: The most viewed articles of 2024 In the media: Will you be targeted? Technology report: New Calculator template brings interactivity at last Essay: Meet the Canadian who holds the longest editing streak on Misplaced Pages Opinion: Reflections one score hence News and notes: It's a new dawn, it's a new day, it's a new life for me... and I'm feeling free Serendipity: What we've left behind, and where we want to go next Op-ed: Elon Musk and the right on Misplaced Pages In focus: Twenty years of The Signpost: What did it take? Arbitration report: Analyzing commonalities of some contentious topics Humour: How to make friends on Misplaced Pages
Single page Front page About Subscribe Suggestions Archives

Replying to your message

Thank you for watching Misplaced Pages and contributing to the community. My friends and I were conducting an experiment. You fixed the edits within minutes on the popular article about GWB. We were not sure if you would watch my other edits on other more obscure articles. We were hoping to gather some data about how closely the more obscure articles are monitored as well as the more popular ones. Perhaps we should have created the "kababs" site first. We also want to let you know that this was an academic exercise and we did not mean any harm.

If you have a free moment and would like to tell us some more details about what your role is at Misplaced Pages, and why you specifically watch the GWB article, please let us know! --AndyClaw (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 02:45, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Talking past each other

I think you're right that I'm guilty of this. I apologize. I'll try to explain -- and I'm not trying to be vexatious here, if we simply disagree in the end that's okay, I hope I don't seem to be badgering -- but perhaps I've not been clear. My problem with the questions is their outcome. Because the questions are formulaic, then almost all RFA regulars (or people who have friends surreptitiously mail them correct answers) will answer the questions correctly, regardless of their quality as candidates. A candidate who has never read the blocking policy, but is an RFA regular will answer correctly. An identical candidate who is not a regular at RFA, however, will sometimes incorrectly answer one of these stock questions and draw opposition. Thus, the question fails at distinguishing good candidates from bad candidates, but instead distinguishes RFA-regulars from non-RFA regulars. The problem is not the questions themselves, but rather that these particular questions have become de rigueur, thus causing their effect to be something different than intended. Does that explain my objection to the questions a little better? --JayHenry (talk) 02:39, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

We seem to agree about the question, but for different reasons. While you feel it harms the RfAs of those who do not participate in RfA regularly, I simply see it as a meaningless question. Anybody can simply regurgitate what is explicitly stated in policy, and asking about a cool down block doesn't demonstrate any real knowledge of the blocking policy (application of policy being more important than the letter of policy). Either way, the question itself is foolish, and I still say giving somebody the answer is even more foolish. - auburnpilot talk 17:54, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

User:SamuelM555

Hi. I have blocked this user, who I see you blocked on April 1, for continuing with the same sort of behaviour you blocked them for. I am letting you know as a courtesy and in case you want to comment on my block. Best wishes, --John (talk) 15:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

George W. Bush

I am sorry you took out the statement about Bush being the worst president per a historian poll. here Then you said partial revert, not needed in article twice, but nothing was added in that edit. Am I missing something? Also we were having a discussion on the talk page as what to do with this poll, to keep it or take it out. Can you put it back in into the intro until we come to consensus on the talk page as to what to do. Thank you, Igor Berger (talk) 01:52, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Welcome back!

Regarding this comment, it seems you've already changed your mind.  ;-) Indeed, I long ago concluded that FNC would be the most difficult article to edit on all of Misplaced Pages. Choosing to engage the subject with anything more than an en passent glance can be a frustrating and difficult journey. Though I can respect many editors' wishes to remain uninvolved, it always makes the effort worthwhile when I see others stand up to those who try and replace policy with passion. Thanks for deciding to jump in the fray -- it's the right thing to do, unless we're willing to turn the asylum over to the patients. Email soon. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 02:24, 11 April 2008 (UTC)