Jargon such as "-cruft" and "nn" is not helpful for newbies.
I think what gets peoples backs up more than that is the sight of 7 or 8 people all writing the same thing (*'''Strong delete'''. NN listcruft ~~~~) on nomination after nomination. We get the message after three, ok!
----- Original Message ---- From: Joe Anderson computerjoe.mailinglist@googlemail.com To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@wikipedia.org Sent: Tuesday, 2 May, 2006 5:08:07 PM Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Cruft
John, Not suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia due to limited scope of interest is pretty much what I thought it meant.
On 5/2/06, John Lee johnleemk@gawab.com wrote:
Kelly Martin wrote:
On 5/2/06, Joe Anderson computerjoe.mailinglist@googlemail.com wrote:
I accept that some may see it as uncivil, but I for one do not.
In my opinion calling content contributed in good faith by our valued contributors "cruft" is incivil. It sends the clear message that their contributions, and by extension themselves, are valueless. Why can't you just say "Not suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia due to limited scope of interest"?
Kelly
What if what Joe took "cruft" to mean what you just said? After all, isn't that what it *does* mean? Why the stigmatism?
John _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- Joe Anderson
[[User:Computerjoe]] on en, fr, de, simple, Meta and Commons. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l