Talk:Tales of an Emo/Archive 01

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

After discussion with the creaters and subject of this diary, it has been decided to un-anonymise (if that's a word) the text. After all, there are plenty of Daniel's out there... This one just happens to be EMO. The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk • contribs)

This isn't some contrived injoke between a bunch of students, so please do not edit this page for it to appear as such. Also, not signing your comments doesn't add much to your prestige, so I suggest you do the tilde thang in the future. Black-Velvet 15:15, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Black-Velvet, you are insane. Uncyclopedia is full of in-jokes, and I do not see how this one will hurt anyone. No one will find this page, ever, unless we tell them. This is not a professional article. If you want professionalism, there's always Wikipedia. Furthermore, 'prestige' is unneccessary here. 05:44, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

And another thing: By anonymising the author, you must also anonymise every person mentioned in the diary. Can you be bothered? 05:45, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

And another another thing: This is dangerously close to being a vanity page, which are not tolerated by Uncyclopedia and it will be taken down eventually, you'll see; unless the names are changed. Remember the McIntosh fiasco. 06:23, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I remember the McIntosh 'fiasco'. That was a steep learning curve. You're right - Uncyclopedia is unprofessional. So I can pick on you for being an anonymous IP, while I am an 'accomplished' author. So my word's the one we'll be taking, eh? Anonymising only means removing the name of the author, not the characters. (Almost) Every published work needs characters. Black-Velvet 13:10, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. Is it just me or was that a pretty pretentious comment you just made? Alright then, given that I now have a username, we have equal weighting. Disregard any throughts you have of having more "experience" simply by having a username for longer.

Now then. Uncyclopedia has zero tolerance for 'cruft' material as it were, so this article will probably get deleted quite soon. That is, unless we change it to be less 'cruftitious'. That involves anonymising people. Alternately, we could ask to get it allowed, in which case we could de-anonymise the author as well (if he gives his consent) (which he will). Also, please don't revert back to the 'joke' with the strikethrough. Do you honestly think that it's funny? I'm sure many will think it's just crude. No disrespect meant at all. Psychade 11:48, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Hah. Uncyclopedia is crude, and we need to conform. I doubt it'll get deleted. Do all the anonymising you have to, just don't make the article less funny.
Alright, let me clear this up. Black-Velvet created this article. He can put whatever he wants in it, so long as it doesnt violate policies. He is more than entitled to revert your edits, as it is his page. If he wants the orgasm in it, he has every right to do so. He's been a user since September 2005. Although it seems hes been inactive for awhile, he is still far above all of you in standing. IP addresses deserve no respect; register a damn account. As for you, Psychade, you have no room either, being a member for all of three days. If you continue to engage in revert wars with Black-Velvet, I will ensure that you are all blocked. -- Sir C Icons-flag-us Holla | CUN 03:59, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Mr Cornbread, I'm glad you decided to intervene. It was my understanding that merit and worth were based on quality of the edits, rather than simply the amount of editing done. However, this doesn't appear to be the case (even if it were, I'd probably still have no case). Also, apparently the one who creates the article seems to have complete and utter control over it. I must've missed that dot point somewhere. Anyway, I'd rather not argue. Black-Velvet can keep his orgasm if he wants. I give up. Also, I created this account specifically for this page. I've been reading (and editing) Uncyclopedia for a good couple of months and this account has pretty much no merit. But, if you want to go by dates, that's fine by me. You win, Black-Velvet. Psychade 14:07, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

If you created this account as a sock puppet thats also a good way to get banned, just FYI. And essentially, yes, the creator of an article usually has the final say in their article. Whenever someone puts crap I don't want in one of my articles, I change it back. Thats just the way it works. -- Sir C Icons-flag-us Holla | CUN 18:58, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Personal tools