User talk:Antandrus/thoughts

Experts

In case you have not already seen it, Sage Ross has done some thinking about experts and Wikipedia. Jkelly 00:51, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

The end

Don't you find your last point a tad rude, Antandrus? How exactly does being interested only in one topic make somebody's individual edits less valuable, let alone the work of somebody pretending not to be a madman? Do you even realise how offensive that is? A good edit is a good edit, just as a bad edit is a bad edit. What are you trying to say? Did you write that critique of single-purpose accounts to boast the scope of your learning? Toccata quarta (talk) 04:18, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

"Boast the scope of your learning" -- speaking of rude?

I'm speaking of the kind of SPAs one encounters on high-traffic articles, as an administrator, as one who tries to keep them clean of POV and lunatics, not people who are experts in something. See WP:SPA. It's single purpose, not single interest, an important distinction. Thank you for stopping by and letting me know what you think. Or did you just drop by to piss me off and start an argument? Antandrus (talk) 04:32, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

And it's also perfectly bloody obvious you haven't dealt with them. Antandrus (talk) 04:33, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't like your observation because of the generalisation it contains. I joined Wikipedia because I wanted to improve one article, and even though my area of interest has expanded since then, I don't think my edits became better because of that. Toccata quarta (talk) 04:37, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Then you're not an SPA as I'm using the term. If you want examples I can find them. They're everywhere, and the majority are blocked as sockpuppets of one banned user or another. (I know you're not an SPA, as I'm familiar with your work.) Single purpose not interest. Antandrus (talk) 04:42, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. Toccata quarta (talk) 04:51, 18 August 2012 (UTC)