I am at this point gunshy.

The only way to overcome your fears is to shoot a someone with (verbal) bullets.

Regarding posting that message, I would do it myself, but I would be denounced and derided for doing it, given my reputation, which often seems to precede me.

I am still interested in people's interpretations of what these things mean,

Which is one reason why meta exists ...

I am slightly bothered by the rigidity of this scheme,

I think we probably all are, but are perhaps a bit more resigned to the current state of affairs (having been aware of it for a bit longer than you).

but your advice (leave comments when closing) seems to be the right response,

I think it originates with Anton, but he'll be pleased to learn that I've so internalised his sage advice that I'm now claiming it as my own.

short of trying to get more control over the machinery.

A-ha! The Revolution! If you want to join that, you need to sign up to the secret meta site.

And suddenly the words of Emily Litella spring to mind...

Being a Brit, I had to look that one up. Looking at the range of possibilities on Wikipedia, I'm not sure how to take that one. Should I see myself as Chevy Chase or as Jane Curtin in this scene?

(In case it's not clear to anyone else, I'm laffin')

"I have looked at your profile and your previous questions or answers, I'm voting to close because this question is pretty bad and you are a moron."

I (double dog) dare you to write this on ecologicyborg's next post.

I use "not a real question" whenever someone asks a question about the complex numbers.

I vote to close as too localized when people ask textbook questions about localization.

I usually pick "too localised" as meaning, "I can't imagine why anyone would be interested in the answer to this question.". But often if I'm not the first to vote-to-close then I'll just capitulate and go with the current majority (which is shown to you when you vote-to-close). Some, such as those that Andy listed above, have very clear meaning for MO, but others really only make sense on StackOverflow.

So the Ideal Solution is to get more control over the machinery - though I've not seen any evidence that the SX2.0 sites can change their messages - and the Realistic Solution is to encourage people to leave comments when closing. After all, how many people are going to look at the FAQ to find out what the real meaning of the message is? And how many of those with the power to vote-to-close are going to remember to look at the FAQ to find out which coded message is actually the one they want to leave?

But perhaps the FAQ could emphasise the fact that this is something we have no control over, and that closing is not necessarily "for ever", and that meta here exists so that those who feel that a question was wrongly closed can argue for its reopening.

Also, new life goal -- no landing on Will's idiot list. :)

• Spam.
• Exact duplicate.
• Not 'MO-level': would be more suitable on another site.
• Incomprehensible: could be an MO question with some editing.

The first two are fine. Perhaps the last two correspond to 'Off topic'' and 'Not a real question', respectively?

My "not a real question" point of view is roughly the same as Will's.

Off-topic is for questions, good or bad, better suited at other theory sites (theoretical CS in particular).

Too localized is too easy, or those like Scott Morisson in the "too localized" thread -- questions that really are just too specific to be of interest to even a specialized audience.

I would be happy to change any of these in favor of standardization among moderators.

The reason "Not a real question" has its place, especially when people like you-know-who (don't want to invoke his name and suffer his presence) start questions that are just rants.