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(a)googlemail.com>
To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)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(a)gawab.com> wrote:
Kelly Martin wrote:
On 5/2/06, Joe Anderson
<computerjoe.mailinglist(a)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(a)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(a)Wikipedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l