I couldn't agree more with basically all of the post and have on occasion /msg'd monks when I thought their consideration was inappropriate, with a few pointers such as to aforementioned FAQ. My only question is with regards to:
Please do not request that the replies be re-parented just so a bad node can be reaped. That changes history....we don't like that.
What I would like to know is inhowfar that extends to replies to true duplicate root nodes. In such cases I frequently go back and consider the (usually very few) replies for reparenting to the good root node, reasoning that putting the replies back in context preserves their searchability value. As an irrelevant bonus, the reaped node is then free to silently slip into the bit bucket.Is that bad?
Makeshifts last the longest.
<code> <a> <b> <big> <blockquote> <br /> <dd> <dl> <dt> <em> <font> <h1> <h2> <h3> <h4> <h5> <h6> <hr /> <i> <li> <nbsp> <ol> <p> <small> <strike> <strong> <sub> <sup> <table> <td> <th> <tr> <tt> <u> <ul>