I just came by to follow up on the previous request and possibly enable some new close reasons, but I'm concerned about how the current drafts look.
I don't have any philosophical objections to the direction you want to go, although I believe some sites in the network tried, struggled with and ultimately abandoned versions of "general reference" close reasons a long time ago (i.e. before my time).
My concerns are with the specifics of the wording. Both reasons, particularly the second, sound a bit antagonistic to me. To quote my colleague Robert Cartaino on writing close reasons,
when you start by explaining what the site is about, it becomes way less cumbersome to explain where they went wrong. I've been experimenting with this format, and it's been an unexpected bonus that users seem to come away feeling much more satisfied knowing what the site *is* about… rather than just being told what they did wrong.
So I propose
These are by no means set in stone; please feel free to use them as starting points for your own versions (or tell me I'm on the wrong track).