| Revision as of 21:09, 19 November 2008 editWerdnabot (talk | contribs)60,702 editsm Automated archival of 1 sections to User talk:SCZenz/Archive 1← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 20:36, 16 January 2022 edit undoMeters (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers172,144 edits Undid revision 1066081862 by Aca1291 (talk) what are you doing? The user is allowed to archive his talk pageTags: Replaced Undo | ||
| (48 intermediate revisions by 23 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| ⚫ | Welcome to my talk page; please leave new messages at the bottom. | ||
| {{werdnabot}} | |||
| * ] | |||
| ⚫ | Welcome to my talk page; please leave new messages at the bottom |
||
| == My issue with the FAR process == | |||
| Some of my past experiences have made me feel that the FAR process is a bit threatening, and that people who use it are more concerned with improving Misplaced Pages by "demoting" articles than by working on them. Putting something up at FAR feels to me to be a statement of "fix it or else," rather than just, "this probably needs to be fixed," which makes it premature for the first pass at a problem. I know a lot about particle physics, and I can make improvements to certain articles that relatively few other contributors can make, but I have limited time — and the FAR process feels ''precisely'' like an imposed time limit to me. But perhaps my impressions are unjustified — maybe I had an unusual experience in the past, or perhaps things have changed since then. -- ] (]) 18:02, 13 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Okay. On the other hand, posting issues to article talk pages has often proven futile, at least in my experience. The FAR at least seems to get closer scrutiny, and tends to draw in useful edits to correct significant problem. I'm sorry you feel under pressure over this.—] (]) 19:34, 13 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 20:36, 16 January 2022
Welcome to my talk page; please leave new messages at the bottom.