• If you go looking for witches, you find them (idea) by Psk (mercifully); useless one-liner, nodeshell deletion requested as well.
  • For anybody who thinks they need to see a psychiatrist (idea) by Jasco (mercifully); blank writeup.
  • Californication (thing) by a scar faery (mercifully) by nuke request.
  • Otherside (thing) by a scar faery (mercifully) by nuke request
  • E2 Nuke Request (thing) by a scar faery (mercifully)
  • panty remover (thing) by dr because it was almost identical to the user's liquid panty remover, and the database only needs one of those, I think. Filed nodeshell deletion request as well.
  • Will and Grace (idea) by flybomber because it was an unformatted rant, little better than a one-liner.
  • Dragonflight (place) by connor (mercifully) because it was getting downvoted to hell and had never garnered even a single upvote.
  • Dragonflight (thing) by hil (mercifully) because it was totally superceded by m_turner's writeup.
  • The Stone Roses (thing) by novalis (mercifully) because it was totally superceded by Henry's writeup.
  • nihilism (person) by highsp66d because it was crap. Inconsistently capitalized and punctuated, unformatted crap.
  • Christopher Wren (person) by Giess (mercifully) because it had been superceded by Imprecation's writeup.
  • Chinese takeout with the in-laws (idea) by TheLady (mercifully) because writeup does not mean reply. I /msged TheLady to say so, and she said she didn't particularly care about that writeup, so it's gone.
  • implicit anti-Semitism in liberal Christianity (idea) by Sudderth because writeup does not mean reply.
  • implicit anti-Semitism in liberal Christianity (idea) by mkb (mercifully) since we discussed it and this whole node needed cleaning out anyway.
  • implicit anti-Semitism in liberal Christianity (idea) by Andar because writeup does not mean reply.
  • implicit anti-Semitism in liberal Christianity (idea) by mat catastrophe (mercifully) because we discussed it and this node really did need a lot of pruning.
  • morality without god (idea) by washort because writeup does not mean reply.
  • morality without god (idea) by mE123 because writeup does not mean reply and it was riddled with typos and misspellings which offended the anal-retentive English teacher who lives in my forebrain. Fear her.
  • Religion is not a salad bar (idea) by tobtoh (mercifully) because writeup does not mean reply and this node needed some serious pruning.
  • Religion is not a salad bar (idea) by dogwalker (mercifully) because writeup does not mean reply and this node needed some serious pruning.
  • I Hate Mudd (idea) by Anomymous Coward because If you don't like your college, then GO SOMEWHERE ELSE AND QUIT COMPLAINING! Filed a nodeshell deletion request also.
  • the problem with "radical linguistics" (idea) by graymalkn (mercifully) because its title is semantically null. Linguistics is the study of language, not its modification.
  • the problem with "radical linguistics" (idea) by rp (mercifully) because although I agree with it, it's still a reply writeup and I nuked the original. Filed nodeshell deletion request as well.

Editor Cooled

Nothing yet.



Notes and Miscellaneous Edits

I was mostly out of commission for the last week of March for personal reasons; my mom was in town and everything's much better now. On April 15, Jongleur and I loaded all our worldly possessions into a U-Haul and drove off to Oregon, which put me out of commission for a few days. On April 22, we head for New Jersey, en route to Europe, which means I'll be in touch only sporadically then, too. Consider yourselves warned.

Question: Is there an established protocol for dealing with nodes that differ only by hyphenation? Firmlinks seem like the most useful approach as far as making searches easier, but at the same time I don't like leaving nodeshells or locked one-writeup nodes cluttering the database...

I advised Mandi to move her writeup on Group Isomorphism Properties to Isomorphism; unfortunately she submitted a title request rather than moving the writeup and Group Isomorphism was deleted. Hopefully it will all be sorted out when the writeup emerges in her Node Heaven. I also encouraged her to cite sources for her theorems and gave more general advice about when and how it's okay to cite a proof from a book (like Explicate Your Lyrics, only for math. Neat.)

I'm trying to get in the habit of /msging users whose writeups I edit without permission; I also prefer to request corrections from writeups' authors rather than mucking around directly, despite the persistent demands of the anal-retentive English teacher who lives in my forebrain, who wants to round up all of e2's stray apostrophes right now.

TheDeadGuy makes a good point below about the potential embarrassingness of posting a list of kills, as I am wont to do. I hereby extend an invitation to all users whose writeups I delete: if you don't want them listed in my editor log, PLEASE /msg me and I will remove them. Thank you.

It's not every day one gets to nuke the Constitution.

The chaos of constitutional amentment nodes finally ticked me off enough to clean things up:

  • I chose the Roman Numeral form for the 'standard' form of node names, since it was the only complete set. The gods can change things around if they decide a different form is better.
  • Duplicate texts of several amendments were deleted, and all commentary will eventually be reparented by some infinitely patient god. Please be nice to Woundweavr since it lost the most writeups (11). Saige, blaaf, dannye, CentrX, and Lord Brawl also merit a crumb of sympathy; the necessary reparenting and nodeshell deletion requests have been submitted.
  • Infinite_Void's writeup under The Constitution of the United States Of America was truncated to represent just The Constitution, preferring CentrX's complete list of well-linked writeups to the 27 amendments to the US Constitution.
  • Amendment 2 stays as it discusses an amendment to a state constitution. This is the only node of this form.
  • Deleted JeffMagnus' Constitution writeup, as that was the only contingency his email left me.
  • Deleted Myconid's Preamble and Article I; they would probably have lived if the author had finished all seven articles.
  • Constitutional amendments in general will be indexed at Amendments to the Constitution of the United States Of America once Padre's great index writeup is reparented there; firmlinks will take care of search contingencies.
  • Add enough linked/locked nodeshells to form a complete set in all three forms.
  • To date, only amendments to the U.S. Constitution have been noded. Of course, we have to allow for the contingency that some enterprising noder may want to sumbit the amendments to his/her own country's constitution. This may mean that the final U.S. Constitutional Amendment node titles may have to be in some nasty namespaced form. At least one non-US noder had come out in strong support of this notion.
  • Nuked Operation Tidy Spring: Or, Amending the Amendments with penalty; its author is an idiot.

Note for the Content Rescue Team: Sarcasmo noded a bunch of copyright content from (/subjects/birds/). As it was pure copy and paste (with hard linking, but not done with any care) I will be removing it as I work down the list.

I suspect we may have a lot of content lifted from Feel free to join in the audit if you like.

alex sez: Axed another 22 writeups (birds and primates) by the same user from the same source. Only one was altered enough to escape deletion. Sad. The CRT has been informed.

Take a little trip, take a little trip with me.

I will never make a listing of those writeups that I have killed. I let the author know why when it happens and that is enough. No reason to share their "shame." Besides, my short term memory has so many holes in it you could build several golf courses in my mind. Good thing I don't play golf.

I think of E2 as an interactive magazine. I have had my dalliances in the world of publishing, once upon a time being the editor of my own magazine (a photocopied little creature with a readership of about 100). Limited to twenty pages every three months, a lot of material was turned away. That is just how it was. And a lot of people whined about how their story or their essay was better than what we did print in the issue they were turned down for. Editorial decisions are always subjective, based on the guidelines for the publication in question, as well as many other factors. That is just how it is. Whining is boring.

Not everything gets accepted.

Like a magazine, the administration and the editorial staff make decisions on what stays and what goes. That is the bottom line. Like a magazine, there are differences of opinion and sometimes writers and editors will leave a magazine because they no longer feel it is what they want to be involved in. People leave jobs, clubs, and support groups when they decide they can no longer grow within the boundaries that are in place. This is normal. This is part of life.

There have to be boundaries or there is chaos.

Things are going to be discussed and people are going to disagree. People are going to walk. New people are going to arrive. The shape of things changes with each passing day. In any job, club, organization or magazine there are going to be changes that are popular at times and unpopular at others.

I've watched people leave E2 and I've read their reasons for doing so. Sometimes I understand and sometimes I don't. This is a website that can consume you like nothing I have ever encountered before. Why? The people, the community and the value of much that is written here astounds me on a daily basis. At the same time, if you allow it to drive you to madness, then it is up to you to regain control.

Everything is a Community
but it cannot be a drunken frat party.

Meaning? Woe be it to those who either don't read guidelines or decide they are above guidelines. This is a showplace. When anyone recommends E2 to a friend or associate, it is better if that recommendation is followed by "you'll read a lot of interesting things there" rather than "you'll read a lot of interesting things there if you can ignore the crap."

Anyway, the rambling commentary is part of my own personal take on E2. There are things I feel strongly about and that I now consider part of my editorial angle.

  • In my opinion, E2 history is as important here as world history. The people, events and changes that have been a part of this place add something to the database that cannot be found elsewhere.
  • When anything is submitted to the database, it is considered to be awaiting acceptance on whether it stays or goes. Deletion of a writeup is not a personal attack, as many seem to feel, it is merely a decision made in a subjective fashion within the guidelines of E2. Get over it.
  • Writeups that stay should be examples to newcomers who peruse the website before deciding what to submit. If they see crap they will node crap. If they see a lot of one line throwaways they will node one line throwaways. I nuke things I feel are bad examples of what to node. Yes, that decision is subjective. Deal. People who come to a new place try to fit in by doing what everyone else is doing.
  • I am strongly opposed to the cutting and pasting of information that is readily available elsewhere on the internet, even if it is something that is freely available for distribution and not copyrighted. Why? Because I don't see the point. There are those who think copying information so it is available here is a good idea. E2 is at its best when it provides information in a new way. There are great writeups here providing information on people, events and things that are easily available elsewhere... but they are written with personality. It is that personality that makes E2 special. Support of directly cut and paste pieces from elsewhere is a kick in the teeth to those who put their heart and soul into their writeups. However, as long as the source is properly cited and there is evidence that the material can be freely reproduced in the manner in which it has been, I won't go near the thing.
  • There are great people here who put a lot of thought and effort into their writeups. It isn't fair to them, and can make them quite cynical, when someone else submits a half-assed effort and receives the same credit.
  • I support all a very broad spectrum of writeups... but some types of writeups are harder than others. Not everything is going to be as warmly embraced as you hoped. There are people of different generations and different mindsets here. Just like the real world. Nothing is perfect. Don't sweat the small stuff. It is all small stuff.

Everything is a microcosm of the real world.
Why do you expect it to be any more or any less perfect?
If you can make it here you can make it anywhere.

Everything is an oasis.
You can't please all the people all of the time.
But if you try sometime, you just might find...
You get what you need.

And that hopefully satiates your curiosity. For now.

New meat in the editorial grinder, I cast about for a fitting WU to "lose my cherry" to. I hit upon one particular WU in premarital sex as a sin, which seemed perfect. It was, at heart, nothing but a cut-and-paste job from The Onion, adding little or no substance to the node itself.

As time goes by, I feel certain that I shall ruminate over my editorial philosophy and produce suitably well-reasoned discussions of What-to-nuke, When-to-nuke-it, Why-nuke-it, and How-to-comfort-the-bereaved. For the time being, I believe I shall let my record stand for itself.

Writeups are sensitive pieces of our psyche. A writeup-ectomy feels bad to most people. Even if we know they're lame and make no sense, we love all the children we beget. So, it makes some sense to explain what would motivate me to offer help to someone or delete someone's write up as a Content Editor at my new home in E2.

To you who have reached this page in the hope of finding out one of the universe's fundamental truths I offer: My ice cold Antarctic penguin FNG beaker iceadz condition-one-party hangover theory of editing. Maybe something you wrote disappeared because of it. See if you think so.

  • Consistency: I can only decide upon what I see. I can't see everything. I'm not always at E2 and when I am, wu's come faster than I can read. When I read your very special writeup it becomes subject to my judgment. Other editors have other ways to judge things. The nature of E2 is that there is no one editorial theory among editors, in the same way there is no absolute standard for writeup submission. Anyone may submit anything. Though anything may not live long on everything.
  • If you were making a submission to a periodical, you'd choose to send your work to an editor whom you feel would be the most sympathetic to your subject and writing style. At E2 you can't choose to whom your article is submitted. It's submitted to everyone, and so, it's at the whimsy of the fates. While this may seem somehow unfair, it is the only true thing to understand about submission to E2. I mean that because you know that's the way things are around here, there should be no complaints when its true nature affects you. And truth be known, your writeup will be subject to any and all content editors. While people do communicate around here, it is only a loose aggregation of people trying to keep to some rudimentary standards. So you will have to create a writeup that satisfies everyone at some basic level, because any one editor can delete a writeup after someone else has cooled it. My advice to all is this: save a copy of all your writeups on your own private hard drive. You never know. A rewrite and a different editorial slant may give it a longer lifespan.

  • Rants: There are rants and there are cogent arguments. There are rants and there is art. In general, I think I should delete a rant from anyone who has not been here longer than me (which should be easy, because I've only been here 1.5 months at this writing). To me, a rant is any writeup which starts off with, "I think," has a lot of, "it seems to me's," and, "I wish"es in the middle, and ends with "So that's why X should be Y." A rant is frequently peppered with strong adjectives and adverbs that help describe the writer's personal dislike for something or someone. Rants are frequently submitted by people who believe they can argue like Dr. Laura Schlesinger, Rush Limbaugh, Geraldo Rivera, or any of the AM radio or cable TV talk jocks. While they imitate the emotion and sometimes the venom of the pros, an amateur rant lacks the foundation upon which to base its argument. A rant becomes an argument when concrete, objective, verifiable data are provided. Arguments are based on actual events, actual people, and or actual options. All of these things can and are referenced in an argument, and thus make an argument the possible basis for learning. When no data or references are provided the rant simply becomes whining. I feel it's my job to remove whining from the database. A rant can also be art. There are many fine examples of this in the E2 database. The authors of these rants knew what they were doing when they created the writeup. Their prior work, contributing factual writeups, poetry, or fiction, has proven they have a command of their art. Thus, the E2 community accepts their contribution as art, in the same way that Picasso would be accepted if he drew a cartoon for the Sunday comics. If you would like your writeup to be accepted in the same way as some of the artists here, you will have to earn your bullshit as they have.
  • One line, one sentence, or two sentence writeups: If you can only think to write something that looks like a dictionary entry, how much do you really know about your subject? Question why you want to add something so shallow to the database. There are occasionally short definitions that are useful because they serve as a place holder for obscure information that may be added later. But those wu's are rare. Generally, I'm inclined to delete every one or two line write up I come across for reasons you'll see below.
  • Obscure local data: This is where I must be subjective. If you writeup that you go to a university where the body of the founder is kept in mummified form and brought out once per year on the anniversary of his death to attend a party in his honor: that's just plain cool. If you've carved your girlfriend's initials on a wooden rowboat in Central Park and you writeup a poem or short story about it, that's art. If the third song your second garage band wrote was Fuck you, you fucking fuckers and you writeup five lines saying so, that's stupid (Unless you're Frank Zappa.)
  • Stuff that's just not wrote right:If you're struggling to make a point and someone can read your writeup to the end and not have the slightest idea what meaning you want to implant in someone's brain, you have probably failed in your quest for writing fame. While none of us is Hemingway or Anna Quindlen (unless she's here under an assumed name) there is no reason to write unless you're trying to push a feeling or idea into someone. The worst reaction is no reaction. If people violently dislike or like your writing, you have succeeded. That's why some writeups with tremendously negative reputation may be some of the best art we have. Unless something was so poorly executed everybody knew it and downvoted it, I'd not be looking for large negative reputation numbers to decide whether or not something should be removed, but rather, writeups which simply haven't been voted on at all. Only well-constructed writeups raise strong emotions. These should stay.
  • Bad grammar and misspelling: You know what? Everyone screws up punctuation and spelling sometimes. I personally wouldn't delete a writeup for these sorts of mistakes, but would urge the author to fix them. Maybe this is because I'm frequently guilty of such errors.
  • Does the author care? Here's another subjective assessment I will tend to make, and I suggest most people will make it unconsciously if they're not aware of doing it by intent. A writeup which appears flippant or hacked doesn't deserved to be read. If the author did not put enough care into the work to make it worth someone's valuable heartbeats to read, then it doesn't deserve to live. This is one reason why E2 doesn't value one-line writups. The people who work here care a lot about this place. They put a lot of work into it. While nobody expects you to work as hard as the founders of this venerable virtual institution, or even as little as lunatics like me, if you don't act like you care about what you do, I won't care about your work either. Guaranteed. Life is way too short for shit.
  • Advice I'm happy to give

    While I don't make my living writing, as some do, I have sold short fiction and am currently under contract to provide a novel for publication in either spring of 2003 or 2004. I am represented by an agent. I have some rudimentary contacts in the literary world, but as I'm sure none of you have heard of me, my credentials may suffer for lack of credibility.

    With that disclaimer I am perfectly willing to discuss with people the steps one might go through to make submissions for publication. To get an agent (advice: don't). To sell a novel idea (advice: schmooze an editor). I'm happy to commiserate with anyone who wants to compare stacks of rejection slips. (I have more than you, no matter who you are.)

    Just like you, if you're submitting your work anywhere, whether it be to node on E2 or to the editors at The New Yorker, rejection is a part of my life and it never gets easier. Ever. Being here makes being a writer easier. I'm very happy to be here with people who love the written word, and who love the people who love to write.

    So my last piece of advice is this:

    You're writers, goddamnit.

    Never stop. For any reason. Ever.


    With reverence and apologies to our brothers and sisters who bear arms and watch over us.

    This is my scratch pad. There are many like it, but this one is MINE. My scratch pad is my best friend. It is my life. I must master it as I must master my life. My scratch pad without me is useless. Without my scratch pad, I am useless. In my scratch pad, I must write the truth I bear inside me. I must write better than John Steinbeck. I must write better than Anna Quindlen. I must write what is born in my heart, lest I make myself a derivative hack. I will... My scratch pad and I know that what counts in life is not our feeble excuses, how loud the bombast, nor how cool people think we are. We know it is writing what is real that counts. We will create honorably... My scratch pad is human, even as I, because it is my life. Thus, I will learn it as a brother. I will learn its weaknesses, its strengths, its parts, its accessories, its codes, and its bugs. I will ever guard it against the ravages of critics and fools. I will keep my scratch pad open and ready, even as I am open and ready. We will become part of each other. We will... Before God I swear this creed. My scratch pad and I are the defenders of my creation. We are the masters of our imagination. We are the saviors of our souls. So be it, until there is no more dreck, but art.

    Log in or register to write something here or to contact authors.