I may not always remember to sign my Klaproth notes (though so far I've always given reasons for my kills), so I'm creating this list right now so nobody's massacred writeups fall through the cracks of anonymous DEATH!

  • The Final Cut (idea) by herbman (mercifully) one-liner getting downvoted to heck
  • The Final Cut (idea) by kenata (mercifully) just a track list; totally superseded by jaubertmoniker's writeup
  • if everybody jumped off a bridge (idea) by tim_three (mercifully); lame one-liner
  • if everybody jumped off a bridge (idea) by thefez (mercifully); lame one-liner
  • if everybody jumped off a bridge (idea) by Protector of Mankind (mercifully); lame one-liner
  • Do the world a favor, raise your kids atheist (idea) by ixs (mercifully); writeup does not mean reply and off-topic to boot.
  • Noam Chomsky on the Attacks Against the World Trade Center and the Pentagon (idea) by Jackson Mayhem (mercifully) by request
  • E2 Nuke Request (idea) by Jackson Mayhem (mercifully) because duh, nuke requests taste like luscious puppy goodness. mmm, puppies.
  • What is up with the daylog nuking?!? (idea) by Nero because it had a nuke request built into it. mmm, puppies. Filed nodeshell deletion request as well.
  • Counterspell (thing) by novalis (mercifully) and (thing) by Dialogue (also mercifully) because they were superceded by Saige's w/u.
  • crippling women (idea) by Old Nick because it was wrong, writeup does not mean reply and blaming the victim is never a good idea to boot.
  • tips for living on a fixed income (idea) by rescdsk (mercifully); a one-liner getting downvoted to hell.
  • nationalism (idea) by swat (mercifully) and nationalism (idea) by sharpie (also mercifully); both E1 writeups made obsolete by AnotherMartini's rescue.
  • Hypnotic Specter (thing) by novalis (mercifully) because it was superceded by Saige's writeup.
  • Yum (idea) by Zorin (mercifully) because it was a one-liner that was getting downvoted to hell.
  • How Come Porn Stars Make it Look So Easy!!? (idea) by GhettoQube (mercifully) because it was a misspelled, inarticulate, unformatted rant, and rightly getting downvoted to hell. Filed nodeshell deletion request as well.
  • Nicolas Cage (person) by mikewertheim (mercifully); it was superceded by The Dead Guy's writeup.
  • mathematical proof that girls are the root of all evil (idea) by Palmaceous because it was crap. Filed a nodeshell deletion request, may it be carried out soon.
  • I'm proud to say I am openly heterosexual (idea) by wonko because it was a waste of nodespace and (rightly) getting downvoted to hell. Filed a nodeshell deletion request as well.
  • Reading Plato doesn't make you smart (idea) by Mr. Frog (mercifully) because it was getting downvoted to hell. I know it's hard to believe, but not everything in life is about picking up girls (there's boys to hit on, too!) Filed nodeshell deletion request as well.
  • Democracy (idea) by robwicks, (idea) by Jansu, and (idea) by vladkornea (all three mercifully, as they'd been getting enough downvotes already)
  • Will I go blind/bald/insane/grow hair on my palms/penis turn black and fall off from masturbating? (idea) by blowdart (mercifully) because it was a stupid, unfunny one-liner.
  • Will I go blind/bald/insane/grow hair on my palms/penis turn black and fall off from masturbating? (idea) by walynn3 (mercifully) because it was getting downvoted out of existence.
  • Guinness (thing) by Eye In The Pyramid (mercifully) because it was a one-liner getting downvoted out of existence.
  • The Destroyer (thing) by rad (mercifully) because it was a cryptic one-liner that meant very little and was getting downvoted out of existence.
  • sucking the cock of corporate cola (idea) by mat catastrophe (mercifully) by request
  • big fucking mistake (idea) by mat catastrophe (mercifully) by nuke request
  • Marge Simpson (person) by binarydreams (mercifully) because its content was superseded by shimmer's writeup



  • Nicholas Cage to Nicolas Cage, but not the other way around, since the latter is the correct spelling and the former common misspelling is softlocked for our convenience.
  • prophecy to prophesy and back again.


  • Corrected spelling and punctuation in SharQ's Astrid Lindgren (person). Will be helping with grammar/general translation issues soon.
  • Suggested grammar corrections to SharQ's avalanche.
  • Pointed out some HTML and formatting weirdness in nationalism (idea) by AnotherMartini; cooled when that was all sorted out

Editor Cooled


Thank you to the following people, who belatedly welcomed me to editorship and/or gave good advice and/or rock my world for other reasons: jessicapierce, Gritchka, siouxsie, and panamaus.

I recently received a /msg questioning my tendency to give low rep/downvotes as a reason for nukage in my editor logs. My private reply to this, which I now make public so y'all can hold me accountable/give me shit if you so choose, is that there's an implied "...and it sucked" tacked onto the end of most of the deleted writeups I've logged about nuking for low rep. Personally, I don't downvote anything I wouldn't be willing to delete, and I think that XP/rep is as good a way as any for coming to a consensus about what sucks. That said, I've come across plenty of nukably low-rep writeups that seemed worth leaving in place, so in the end what really determines whether I wield the editorial pimp stick (unprovoked by nuke requests and the like, of course) is whether I personally think something sucks. So there ya go.

Several days ago I deleted a large portion of farqwart’s wu’s. This was not a personal attack. They were all entries from The Devil’s Dictionary that had been posted under the individual entries name. Saige had already comprehensively copied the Devil’s Dictionary, and I could see no reason to maintain identical duplicate entries in different places. Attempts to reason with farqwart were met first with silence and then later with the public posting of my /msg’s to him on his homenode, along with analysis of my poor spelling and confused intentions. He was less than cooperative and his attitude suggested he was unwilling to compromise.

I’ve never been too fond of unoriginal material on E2, but I can see the value in keeping The Devil’s Dictionary as most of it is amusing and it is a historical document that opens a window onto the attitudes and opinions of a different era. As a bonus, it’s also public domain, relieving us of the concern of copyright. Unfortunately for some users, like farqwart, and thecarp, it has already been noded.

Two years ago Saige copied the entire text of The Devils Dictionary and organized the entries in large nodes, by alphabet, so as to reduce the NFN potential. This was a good thing. Some noders had already completed a few individual entries as whim prompted them, but it was Saige who completed the project first. Thusly, hers shall remain, while the others are removed. As it turns out, and as erevapisces so passionately pointed out, there are a large number of these individual entries that I was unaware of.

Despite claims to the contrary, it was never my intent to single out farqwart or any other noder and I voted on none of them, either + or -, before marking them for destruction. Neither am I drunk on my very small amount of power, nor am I deleting them because I find the material offensive. It was simply a matter of attention, I had never seen these individual entries before. Had I noticed them earlier I would have done the same thing, even before I was granted Admin status.

As for the claims that the individual wu’s are better because they included integrating links, well, that’s a good point and I asked Saige to include links in her definitions. She has agreed to do so.

I have already removed the entries under A, and it took me almost an hour and a half. Like I said, there are a lot of these, alot more than I anticpated. Some help from the editors and other Gods would be appreciated. Please note on the following if you will assist.

Over the span of my years here on Everything2, I think I have given the impression of being a fairly mild-mannered, easy-going fellow. I can think of only two occasions where I genuinely lost my temper in the nodegel, and I felt deep shame at my behavior afterward. I am not given to fits of rage; hate is by and large simply not my bag, baby.

But I have always, always, ALWAYS hated those fscking "How To Offend Any" nodes with a passion. And now they are GONE. ALL OF THEM. (Even "How to offend any Jacobin", which was actually pretty funny.)

I dedicate this bloodbath to DMan, whose rant in How to offend any person who makes "how to offend" nodes was way too ad hominem for me (hate the node, not the noder), but who was nevertheless dead on target here:

Not only do I find your inane blurbs on offending innocent people boring, they are all blinding flashes of the obvious. You are blatantly noding for numbers. I do not find your lame attempts at humor funny, nor do I understand the purpose of making dumb jokes on specific groups of people, because face it, chances are no one will ever do it in real life, and that negates the point of these nodes.

I am sick of your lame jokes and I will use all my voting powers against them until this spree of idiocy comes to an end. You are the embodiment of all that is wrong with Everything, being a combination of NFN, "getting to know you" nodes, one-liner nodes, and XP whoring. You have no place here on E2. Go back to the USENET spam forums. Everything is a forum for discussion, not a database of dull punchlines. If you want to attempt humor, make it good, like the ask moJoe series. You suck. Begone.


I've been a content editor for about a month now. I haven't kept a list of all the write-ups I have deleted, though there have been quite a few. I can say that the majority of write-ups I have deleted have been:

  • Old write-ups that have been superseded by new, better, more fulsome ones. Usually I send a /msg to say the write-up has been rendered obsolete. These are fairly uncontroversial nukings, though some feel that short snappy summaries should stay, even though more fulsome descriptions follow. This is not my view. I usually delete them.
  • Write-ups which have no links. There are a surprisingly number of these, some old e1 writeups, some new. I send a /msg to say Link and link or something like that.
  • Puerile foolishness, like juvenile write-ups on pussy or derogatory writeups about Spice Girls. (No, I don't like them either, but that's no reason to be rude). These are mostly written by newbies. Sometimes I send personal /msges too with advice or explanations, though I have been called lots of nasty names in return. It can get kind of unpleasant, though I try to remain polite.

Which brings up the question that I have been pondering: should I be /msging people more often before I delete their write-ups to ask them to make their write-ups better? This was the opinion of one long-time noder, whose write-up I deleted, twice. It consisted of three quotations about a famous person with no context provided at all. When this noder's ire was brought to my attention, I /msged them to point out that On the Noding of Quotes clearly states the general view of quote nodes - that they're not too useful - and that I share that view. I said I would have accepted the quotations if they had been used in a write-up about the subject that said more than just the quotations themselves, or if the contexts in which the quotes were uttered had been provided. But that was not the case; here, there were just the quotes, and to me, that wasn't enough. I needed more to justify the existence of this write-up. The discussion which ensued was interesting.

This noder made a number of arguments. The first was that there are many things in the database which are neither useful nor informative, and since those were there, the write-up in question should also remain. I countered that if I left their write-up in place just because there were lots of other useless ones, then we'd never get rid of anything at all. We editors can only delete what we find, and when we find useless things, we delete them. I invited them to point out to me write-ups that they thought were useless, and said I'd be glad to look them over and delete them if I too thought they were useless. The example they brought to my attention was healthlessness, an admittedly very trivial Webster 1913 write-up. They argued that it was both unoriginal and "sanctioned", and that therefore cut-and-paste write-ups are not unwelcome here; if Webby's stay, so should theirs. Though it does raise the interesting question of whether some of Webby's more absurd entries might one day be purged, I didn't take this argument very seriously. Webby is a bot and a very special case, not to be equated with our noder friend, a sentient being who makes choices, as I said to them. They thought I should exercise my choice as a sentient being and delete that Webby write-up, but that did not, and will not, happen.

After a short discussion of how cut-and-paste write-ups were once welcome, and in many cases received very high xp, we agreed that e2 had changed. We then moved on. They took a new tack, saying that even very short write-ups should stay, and professed the opinion that in many cases one line said all there was to say about a subject. This noder appears to believe that only when a write-up has been superseded should it be deleted, because otherwise the database would be full of "holes". These are not views I share. As e2 evolves, the bar is raised, and where once one line sufficed, now paragraphs live. Many of the Content Rescue Team's efforts show how much can be said about what appears at first blush to be a short subject. As for worrying about a database full of holes, the whole mission of the Content Rescue Team is to plug those holes; we see them as a challenge, not a weakness. But no "silly teams" for our noder friend, it turns out. Ah well. We'll labour on without them.

Ultimately, I think the noder's biggest beef, and most serious criticism, was that a number of their write-ups had been nuked "with nary an explanation", as they said, when they felt that in at least half the cases the situation could have been resolved much better with a /msg first. They - quite poetically, I thought - noted that "the cold statement of Klaproth is no welcome message". They said that they would try hard to enhance a write-up they were /msged on, whereas if it was just nuked they felt angry.

While I sympathize with my interlocutor's emotions, my instinct is still just to nuke these things - always with an explanation, never with penalty. Every write-up can be reposted the next day, though reposting "as is", without revision, is not a good idea. A nuking is an opportunity to learn and improve. I will try to be more vigilant about /msging people about the write-ups I want to nuke, though.

By the way, during this discussion I asked this noder twice if I could delete the write-up that precipitated this lively exchange, and they said "go ahead". They were tired of it. I was glad to see it go.

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