In my previous logs, I have discussed topics such as:

Nose to the grindstone:

I'm still on the road and hence sporadically on e2 (see my homenode for details) but every now and then I get to indulge my addiction. Here are this month's results.


  • cabernet sauvignon (thing) by Kallen (mercifully) because it was totally superceded by sneff's writeup.
  • We are about to be enslaved by a matriarchy (idea) by Zanth because it was a pretty stupid rant.
  • We are about to be enslaved by a matriarchy (idea) by gitm (mercifully) because it was a reply to a pretty stupid rant, and obsolete due to my deletion of the former. Added We are about to be enslaved by a matriarchy to Nodeshells Marked for Destruction.
  • Resist all the urges that make you wanna go out and kill (idea) by moroboshi (mercifully) because writeup does not mean reply, even to a node title, and especially to make a writeup that admits it's lame.
  • Resist all the urges that make you wanna go out and kill (idea) by GirlsDontLikeMe (mercifully) because writeup does not mean reply.
  • Resist all the urges that make you wanna go out and kill (idea) by dko (mercifully) because writeup does not mean reply, and it was getting downvoted to hell.
  • Hedostentialists (person) by moJoe (mercifully) because the topic at hand was sufficiently covered in Hedostentialism. Added Hedostentialists to Nodeshells Marked for Destruction.
  • fucking and eating grapes (idea) by moJoe (mercifully) because "see also" makes me twitch, and besides, the topic is sufficiently covered in Hedostentialism. Added fucking and eating grapes to Nodeshells Marked for Destruction.



  • sheila-na-gig because there was more information at sheela-na-gig, although I'm honestly not sure on the spelling. Same caveat as stated with the firmlinking applies here as well.
  • hot dogs on a stick because I didn't have the heart to nuke either writeup there. Time to ask higher-ups to intervene with reparenting, I suppose.


One of the fun things about being an editor is adding to the dialogue that is the list of C! writeups. On 16 July 2002, I wandered onto E2 to find independent media are biased too on the list twice. As a result, I surfed softlinks for a long time, softlinked Moral Agency in a Propaganda system all over the place, and produced the following C!s:

Mea culpa.


  • Added The difficulties of keeping an ideal to Nodeshells Marked for Destruction because it's nigh-enough identical to The difficulties of keeping to an ideal, but the latter isn't a nodeshell.

  • Asked blaaf to hardlink The History of the Old Woman back to Voltaire's satirical masterpiece, Candide. Apparently I did so in what came across as a rather high-handed and arrogant manner, as noder replied similarly, only more verbosely, with added bonus schmack-talk, profanity, and assumptions about my gender. Fortunately for both of us, I was sufficiently distracted that I couldn't read or reply quickly enough to escalate the unpleasantness too much, and actually heard blaaf out. Turns out that what I thought was a helpful, if brief, blab! comment wasn't, but my suggestion was taken, even if the tone in which I made it wasn't appreciated. So I apologized:

    /msg blaaf Hey, relax. I'm SORRY it sounded like I was accusing plagiarism. I've been going through old writeups of mine and realizing how many border on plagiaristic cut & paste NFN badness, and so I'm very sensitive to that mistake right now. I really am trying to help. Also, not everyone has heard of Voltaire or Candide, unfortunately. Giving both publicity is a good good thing.

    Let it be known that I will gladly cool blaaf's fully self-audited and linked Candide as soon as the opportunity arises. I'd also be happy to help out by auditing the writeups in question but only by request. The moral of the story is:

    1. I have to learn to write kinder, gentler editor messages.
    2. Rather than trying to reply to someone's criticism, etc. with lightning-fast wit and bitchiness, it's better to hear the other person out.
    3. Self-audits are good.

    There's more, I'm sure, and maybe I'll add it later, but right now it's late and I'm tired.

  • Added how do u get onto another persons MSN messenger to Nodeshells Marked For Destruction
  • Talked to TehBear about Thierry Henry and how to make it and other writeups about soccer/football players look less like cut and paste. Go upvote the results now!
  • Think like a newbie
    Think like a newbie
    Think like a newbie

    Well, if you are new around here, you might have experienced my brand of contact recently. I am far more busy lately than I have been in some time and time is limited, but in reading a lot of the talk around these here parts I've done some thinking. One of the primary things I have been thinking about is how to...

    Think like a newbie

    Now, I have said before in some previous mythological editor log that an established name on E2 will naturally gather more notice when they post a writeup. There are people who love (and hate) said user's style and will immediately check out the new offering. This is a natural thing and must be accepted. However, one should not be so entrenched in their embracing of established users that we see certain folks above fault and overlook their missteps and mistakes of the past. Is it right that a new user should have their addition to a "getting to know you" node that is a list of things or a collection of responses or random thoughts nuked while the existing writeups by established users that is little more than what they submitted stay? No, not at all. There is, by nature, greater respect extended to the established user. They have submitted a lot of good material and a long time ago they submitted something silly. So it gets overlooked or editors say "eh, that's okay." Well, it isn't okay. It sets a bad example, especially when you...

    Think like a newbie

    You follow by example when you come to a new place, and certainly you can accept the rejection of your submission, as you must do in any environment like this. However, I have personally heard from many new users that I contact regularly that they are upset because their addition to a node was nuked and similar type material by established users stayed. Immediately the red flags of preferential treatment go up. This seems to be a key reason why people give up on E2. They feel like they are being hazed rather than helped. They feel a double standard. The fact is, established noders would not submit such material today, but they did in ages past because it was acceptable then.

    Think like a newbie

    Audit yourself or ask someone else to. I will submit to an audit by anyone who would like to undertake the task. Anyone who has been here for a long period of time needs to be open to an audit. When you have a proverbial shitload of nodes, you lose track and you don't remember about the time you noded "My five least favorite vegetables" but the newbie who finds that node with three users submitting their five least favorite vegetables thinks it is okay to submit theirs. If you think like a newbie, how would you react to your five veggies being nuked and the others staying. Pretty fucking pissed. I would be too.

    Think like a newbie

    I believe that established users with older, sillier writeups that are not up to their usual standards have the right to be asked about the node before nuking. However, when it is a node where a new user is submitting something they think is okay because of what already exists there, all bets are off. Public relations demands a decision across the board and not just on the new addition. When the new user sees that this little patch of crabgrass is unacceptable for anyone, then they begin to see what direction to go in rather than fuming over preferential treatment and believing the bar is being raised only for new users and new writeups.

    I wonder about "effort". How much effort should we expect one to expend in creating a wu? Is effort related to "value"? What's the value of a wu, anyway?

    Because value is a very subjective parameter with respect to a wu, I'll express my opinion as a concern about cluttering E2 with wus which have been executed with minimal regard for the subject or the reader. Why should magnificent wus both factual and creative, executed with thought and precision, stand in equal stead beside two sentence blather puked out in haste?

    Maybe I'm getting too old for this. But if someone doesn't care enough to put a modicum of effort into their work, then they shouldn't mind the thought and effort I have to put into not only nuking it, but in developing a cogent excuse for having done so.

    • Takrat. Contained little factual information.
    • why is my goldfish upside-down? Removed both wus in this node, and assigned the nodeshell for destruction. Both wus lacked factual content. Neither contained any well-executed creativity.
    • cocaine nose job My explanation for why I nuked this was longer and contained more verifiable fact than this wu.
    • Gear a one-liner with no useful information.

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