Forum:It appears that Euroipods is STILL causing problems...

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia.

See latest few talk page sections regarding the Testimonials. Can somebody settle this edit war? --User:Nintendorulez 20:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Statistically, its possible. 20:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

If anyone on the site can, Nin, it's you. --Hrodulf 22:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I've restated my argument as to why there is no good reason to put the reference to me on the page countless times. Some people seem to listen, but the admins won't stop reverting. Just look at the page's history log! Half the edits are removing my name, putting it back, removing it, putting it back. Plus, I'm threatened with the banstick if I so much as touch the article so I can only debate the admins on the talk page to request that my name be removed. >_< --User:Nintendorulez 22:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

If you choose to give these people power over you by making this important to your sense of self worth, that's not on the admins, that's on you. Look at my response to Children of Hrodulf. I handled the situation differently than you have; I didn't let others' opinions of me define my view of my self image, I realized that an unjustified personal attack reflected badly upon the attacker, not upon me, and I responded in an effective manner, expressing my disdain for Some User's actions, and my lack of respect for his opinion of me, rather than in an ineffective manner, demanding a retraction of the attack or insult that rather than obtaining its purpose, instead fed into the motivation to attack further, providing your "tormentors" with endless entertainment, all at your self-inflicted expense.

I dare say there may be a lesson for you in that. The power to free yourself from all of this is inside you, and if you consider what I've typed carefully, perhaps you will find it. You are in total control of this situation, and you always have been. It is your choice whether to continue to perpetuate this, or to end it. --Hrodulf 22:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Wha? I just want my name off the article... And I just got two edit conflicts in a row. --User:Nintendorulez 22:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Desire is the source of all suffering, Nin. --Hrodulf 22:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll do it for 3 grand. No less. Large, unmarked bills. Methodist Church parking lot. 7:00 PM. Tonight.   t o m p k i n s  blah. ﺞوﻦ וףה ՃՄ ண்ஸ ފއހ วอฏม +տ trade websites 23:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

And you can insure that it doesn't get reverted? --User:Nintendorulez 00:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I can do alot more than that. Afterall, my name is Tompkins.   t o m p k i n s  blah. ﺞوﻦ וףה ՃՄ ண்ஸ ފއހ วอฏม +տ trade websites 00:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC) 00:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Sweet. You got yourself a deal. --User:Nintendorulez 00:31, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

You now have 27 minutes to deliver the money. Act quickly.   t o m p k i n s  blah. ﺞوﻦ וףה ՃՄ ண்ஸ ފއހ วอฏม +տ trade websites 00:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Wait, money? I thought you wanted 3 large guys named Bill that were grand... --User:Nintendorulez 00:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I suppose I could settle for three grand Bills. You have 20 minutes.   t o m p k i n s  blah. ﺞوﻦ וףה ՃՄ ண்ஸ ފއހ วอฏม +տ trade websites 00:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I approve of this plan. Gross profit for providing a questionable service is much more important than personal growth. --Hrodulf 01:45, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

How much is "Wikipeace" really worth?

I could do it, but my going rate for listening to stupid arguments is $2USD/minute. --Lt. Sir Orion Blastar (talk) 23:57, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Now, don't overestimate yourself, Orion. Psychiatrists are often paid as much as $250 per hour - roughly $4 per minute - for listening to the kind of insane ranting and blathering that goes on at Talk:Euroipods, and sometimes it takes years to work out the issues to the point where something resembling a cure is possible. That's why so many of them have resorted to becoming pill-pushers. I mean, who has the time?

What's more, I'm not so sure we can simply dismiss the argument as "stupid." Maybe, just maybe, that one little three-letter word represents everything that's wrong with this website, with the people who run it, and with the entire concept it's based on. Am I insane for believing this? Probably. Should I call a psychiatrist myself, and pay him (or her) $250 per hour of the course of several years to figure out why? Sure. But the sooner people realize one of those two things (the concept thing or the insanity thing, doesn't matter which), the sooner we can fix the situation! (Of course, when I say "we," I actually mean "they.")  c • > • cunwapquc? 03:55, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Well I don't have my PDH in Psychology yet, so I charge half the rate. It might take me twice as long to solve the problem as a real Psychologist would. I could also bill their HMOs and they can pay the copay. --Lt. Sir Orion Blastar (talk) 23:22, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Hrodulf/EuroipodsChapel (If you can't solve a "problem," build a chapel for it and/or find a paper bag to breathe in. Or not.) --Hrodulf 09:41, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I can't believe it's not a religion! --Lt. Sir Orion Blastar (talk) 23:22, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Anniversary

Tommorrow will be Dec 1 (my time), one year since the damned thing was featured and started this stupid flame war. Pretty lame that you guys are STILL fighting over it =P --Uncyclon - Do we still link to BENSON? 01:54, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm technically trying to end the war, but whatever. nobody cares. --Hrodulf 02:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Problems? What Problems?

Personally, I think it's really great that everyone here at Uncyclopedia is so excited and enthusiastic about Euroipods! I mean, it's so much fun to have these nice, long, involved discussions about important issues that affect us all in such deep and meaningful ways! And why do people keep calling it a "flame war"? I don't smell anything burning... Of course, I have one of those fancy convection ovens, with the overcooked sensor and everything, so I probably wouldn't in any case. Anyway, let's break out the champagne! Here's to another full year of arguing about Euroipods! Tally ho, mateys!  c • > • cunwapquc? 02:37, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree. These silly fights are part of what makes Uncyclopedia, and Euroipods, so great. Euroipods really WOULD suck if all this didn't happen. Crazyswordsman...With SAVINGS!!!! (T/C) 02:39, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Pretty sure that was sarcasm over there on SU's part. Just in case you're not in on the joke.   t o m p k i n s  blah. ﺞوﻦ וףה ՃՄ ண்ஸ ފއހ วอฏม +տ trade websites 03:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Did you ever consider that you're the one not in on the joke? 03:49, 30 Nov 2006

Never.   t o m p k i n s  blah. ﺞوﻦ וףה ՃՄ ண்ஸ ފއހ วอฏม +տ trade websites 22:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Obligatory vote to rename the website "Euroipodsopedia.org"

For. I mean, why just one more year of arguing about Euroipods? Why not five, ten, twenty, fifty? Hell, we're just gettin' started here, folks! When they finally roll me into the retirement home, I want to be in there, arguing about free iPods!  c • > • cunwapquc? 04:39, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

• For and Reskin, a reskin is deffinatly in order. --Uncyclon - Do we still link to BENSON? 05:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
• Euroipods! - Sir Sikon [formerly known as Guest] 05:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
• Didn't we already do several Euroipods reskins? Anyway, I'm always in favor of another. Crazyswordsman...With SAVINGS!!!! (T/C) 07:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

We had Victory in Euroipods Day but that was for the supposed end to the war. How wrong was everyone. --Uncyclon - Do we still link to BENSON? 08:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

How about Encyclopedia Euroipodia? --ANIDN MENOSCWICZ 20:44, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Can Euroipods Save America?

Yes! Euroipods can do anything! It never, ever stops!

Hey, I think I can see myself in that picture! 06:58, 30 Nov 2006

/me doesn't care about America. - Sir Sikon [formerly known as Guest] 07:46, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

"That picture is a mantlepiece"

~ KWild on on that picture

I just made that my desktop image. --ANIDN MENOSCWICZ 20:45, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Somebody give me ONE actual argument to keep my name on the page.

I have yet to hear any. Wouldn't we all just be better off if my name was removed already? --User:Nintendorulez 22:06, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, here are ten good reasons:

1. If your name were removed, what would the three or four admins who are keeping this up, and the one in particular, have left to masturbate over?
2. What happens to all the poor little helpless defenseless pixels? Wouldn't you just be sending them into oblivion, never to truly exist again?
3. If the aforementioned admins can't masturbate (successfully) anymore, won't they get really cranky and stuff?
4. Why would we even have admins here in the first place, if not to put obscure, pointed attack references to established users into pages that those users don't especially like?
5. If the admins became unnecessary as a result, what else would they actually do? Get jobs? Girlfriends? Seriously, come on.
6. Endless bickering over nothing is a good way to cause high levels of stress, which leads to high blood pressure, and eventually, heart attacks. Many of the admins who are insisting on keeping the reference in place are the children of wealthy heart surgeons. You wouldn't want to take the food right off their table, would you?
7. Even if one of the admins in question was able to masturbate (successfully) over something other than the reference to your name in the Euroipods article, wouldn't it just be a cold, empty experience?
8. How else would the admins know who sucks up to them to trust here, if not for being able to see what side they're on in the unending Euroipods debate?
9. If User:Elvis can't keep prolonging all this Euroipods bullshit, won't he have to go back to sporking Wikipedia articles about the British Parliament, and wouldn't that mean that more people might accidentally read them, just making everything that much worse?
10. Last but not least, won't people think Uncyclopedia is trying to be popular or useful in some way? We could never have that... Heaven forbid!

 c • > • cunwapquc? 22:35, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

OK here is three:

1. Because Nin cares so much about it.
2. Because SU cares so much about it.
3. Everyone else thinks your response's to it is so fucking funny :-)--The Right Honourable Maj Sir Elvis UmP KUN FIC MDA VFH Bur. CM and bars UGM F@H (Petition) 22:41, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Funny, the first two seem like reasons to remove it. And as for the third, it won't be long before they get sick of it. Trust me on this. --User:Nintendorulez 22:44, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Actualy if the first two stop being true then your correct the last will cease to be true, but unfortunatly whilst you have specific rules against it and SU claimed to be dropping it neithier of you have so all 3 continue to be true, as variosue people have pointed out the ball is firmly in your and SU's court.--The Right Honourable Maj Sir Elvis UmP KUN FIC MDA VFH Bur. CM and bars UGM F@H (Petition) 22:54, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

No, I mean they'll get sick of my constant pleas to get this removed. I have no intention of dropping this until my name is taken off the article, and no sooner. Putting my name on adds no comedic value to the article. Changing the name does not detract from the article at all. So, why not change the name? --User:Nintendorulez 22:58, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, here are a few more:

1. If User:Elvis finally decides to stop, won't the people who write dictionaries have to change the picture that appears next to the definition of the word "douchebag"? Changes like that cost money.
2. Assuming the reference is removed, and admins like User:Elvis have to start masturbating to things like magazines, DVD's, and inflatable dolls instead, won't that risk getting semen stains all over some perfectly good magazines, DVD's, and inflatable dolls? Assuming he's successful, of course.
3. An actual end to all the ceaseless bickering, simply by removing one three letter word, would prove that people are capable of being satisfied with getting what they ask for, right? Wouldn't that completely destroy the entire conceptual foundation that Wiki adminship is based on?
4. What else does User:Elvis actually do around here, anyway?
5. Let's say, purely hypothetically, that I owned a machine gun, and I walked into the post office one day and started shooting everything that moved. This has nothing to do with Euroipods, of course... Let's just say I did that, okay?
6. What if User:Elvis is gay? Wouldn't that explain everything rather neatly, and cause it all to make sense somehow? Nobody wants that.
7. If I owned a frog, and I put it in a pot of water, and the reference were removed, and I put the pot of water on the stove, and turned the heat on under it, and the water started to get really hot, and then I suddenly saw that someone had accidentally put the offending reference back, and I had to go and revert it, isn't there a possibility that my poor little frog might die?
8. Isn't endless bickering about Euroipods the whole purpose of Uncyclopedia in the first place?

 c • > • cunwapquc? 23:02, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Poor Nin with friends like you.....--The Right Honourable Maj Sir Elvis UmP KUN FIC MDA VFH Bur. CM and bars UGM F@H (Petition) 23:38, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Friends? Since when are we friends? Do you really think I'm doing all this for his benefit? Do you even realize that for the entire time I've been here, I've never once initiated a single discussion of any kind whatsoever with User:Nintendorulez, and he's never initiated a single discussion with me? Ever? About anything? Think about that for a minute.  c • > • cunwapquc? 23:49, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, soo... you're just trolling for the sake of trolling. Well, I must say, that's a load off of my back. I was beginning to question my relationship with Nin.   t o m p k i n s  blah. ﺞوﻦ וףה ՃՄ ண்ஸ ފއހ วอฏม +տ trade websites 23:53, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Ahhh, there's the magic word again. Nothin' better than using the T-word to make your point, eh? That just takes care of everything, doesn't it? Can't argue with that, nuh-uh. Never mind that you haven't even considered for one nanosecond that I might actually be right about something for once! Noooo, the T-word conquers all! It's the amazing talisman of authority! Stops the bad guys in their tracks! You instantly, irrevocably win any argument you use it in! Who needs the ability to solve problems creatively? Who even needs the ability to think independently? Who needs anything, really, other than that one magic word? I sure can't think of anyone... Can you?  c • > • cunwapquc? 00:44, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

If you were right, and you knew you were right, you'd think that you could come up with a better approach than attacking administrators as masturbating douchebags.   t o m p k i n s  blah. ﺞوﻦ וףה ՃՄ ண்ஸ ފއހ วอฏม +տ trade websites 00:52, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

How many times, exactly, have I tried writing well-reasoned, thoughtful, rational arguments for why the practice of admins attacking regular users in main article space should be ended? A dozen? Two dozen? All completely ignored. I might has well not have bothered at all... But this seems to be working, don't you think? At least you're paying attention to this. Nobody paid attention before, not one little bit. I you want me to repeat them all again, I will, but please Tompkins, I'm begging you: If you're just going to ignore the well-reasoned, thoughtful, rational arguments yet again, don't waste my time, okay? I'm asking you this favor as a fellow Iowan. (Not that that should mean anything... I've only lived in this town for 3 years, after all.)  c • > • cunwapquc? 02:13, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Never said you did talk to each other about it but being made to look such a wanker by association, I'm feeling positivly sorry for him.[after edit conflict]--The Right Honourable Maj Sir Elvis UmP KUN FIC MDA VFH Bur. CM and bars UGM F@H (Petition) 23:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Here's my argument

See User:Hrodulf/Children_of_Hrodulf, Talk:Euroipods#Testimonials_._._._._._dot

Grow up, you fucking little babies. --Hrodulf 23:11, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

This proves nothing, other than that you have only one leg, which we already knew. And what are those things growing out of the baby's head, anyway? Horns? They're in the wrong position, aren't they?  c • > • cunwapquc? 23:49, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

"Waah waah waah" is all I hear from the baby. Payback's a bitch, you little piece of shit. Go change that diaper, you've been carrying that turd euroipods in there for a whole year. FUCK YOU!!!!!! --Hrodulf 23:52, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Elvis, Hinoa, Tompkins, et al: I don't think it's funny. So don't say everyone thinks it is. Don't you see that all this will most likely stop if the names are taken out? None of you have given a single real reason why they should be there; the responses will always still be there for you to laugh youself silly at, this is a wiki after all. The only difference is that nobody will be complaining any more. It seems the entire reason you want to keep it there is because of the negative reaction to it; all it makes me think of is when a child takes something belonging to another child or otherwise intentioanlly aggravates them, just to see them react to it. (I'm willing to bet you were one of those children who liked to (or would have liked to) do just that. That or you were at the recieving end, and this is some kind of transference.)
It's nothing but a primitive way of trying to assert your alpha-male status over others. As evidenced by your own words, you wouldn't even care if he didn't care about it. While it's clear you probably weren't the brightest kids in your class, I think we can all rise above the "schoolyard bully" behaviour? Or at the very least try to grow up. The rest of us managed it fine.
So, unless you can give an actual legitimate reason for keeping the names in the articles against the respective users' wishes, they should be removed. And I'll do that, and keep doing that, unless you can. Remember you don't lose anything by taking them out. I'm not looking for more arguing, or accusations of trolling here; I want legitimate reasons for keeping the names in the article here, nothing else. 00:40, 2 Dec 2006

I'm sorry, but Some User is the one calling people names - not that you two are associated in any way, shape, or form - but maybe you should try and look at everyone's side here.   t o m p k i n s  blah. ﺞوﻦ וףה ՃՄ ண்ஸ ފއހ วอฏม +տ trade websites 00:45, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Reasons? 00:56, 2 Dec 2006

I, for one, would really, really appreciate an end to the name-calling. But that's all part of the Big Package Deal, isn't it? And as for me being the only one doing it, hmm, let's see... "little piece of shit"? Not my words! "Wanker"? Nope... "Troll"? Sorry, someone else. Sock puppet? Certainly not! "Really need to get a fucking life"? Can't remember, but doesn't sound like something I would say either... "Pig"? Hmm, still waiting...! Hey, this is fun!  c • > • cunwapquc? 01:03, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I've had it.

All of you, check UN:OFFICE. I'm putting my foot down. —Hinoa KUN (talk) 00:42, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and added you, tompkins, and mhaille to the list; hope you don't mind. And I'm moving this back into the VD, and removing that rule fromt the list, as it clearly says at the top of the VD that it's for community discussion, and this is an issue that affects the community. 00:55, 2 Dec 2006

This was part of the agreement that Elvis, Tompkins, and I all agreed on. I don't think so. —Hinoa KUN (talk) 00:57, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Well I'm glad that entirely non-biased decision was discussed and agreed upon by the community, and people from both sides of the discussion, who didn't abuse their power to get their way. I'm all for cutting out the flaming, but that didn't help at all. We need to reasonably discuss this here, and I've only heard any reasons from one "side" of the argument. I'm trying to keep it civil, but the issue won't go away unless it's resolved. If you can't help resolve it, don't contribute to the discussion. 01:04, 2 Dec 2006

Um, when did I get into this discussion? Lemme check... I think about oh, half an hour ago. To be honest, the reason for that rule is because I'm fucking sick and tired of everyone bitching at each other over ONE DAMN PAGE ON THE WIKI. There are other ways I could resolve it, including banning everyone who's posted in here for a month and/or deleting Euroipods completely. But you'll note that I instituted something in the Office rather than something extreme. Maybe you'd like to explain how you'd handle it? —Hinoa KUN (talk) 01:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

You did worse, reverting the article without discussing it. You have to understand, you can't say "stop caring about this becuase you shouldn't"; that's like telling a vegetarian to stop being stupid and eat meat. There needs to be discussion to resolve this. Telling people to shut up or forcibly shutting them up by banning them never works, and is completely ignoring the very thing being discussed. I'm trying to find reasons why nin's name should be on the article; nobody reverting it to have them in will give a reason. And do you realise the arguing will end when the names are removed? That's how I'm trying to resolve this. My utilitarian worldview tells me that removing the names from the article will bring infinitely more benefit than keeping them in; so that's the right thing to do. Do you agree that the arguing will stop if the names are removed? Please, I can't see a reason why it wouldn't, I'd love you to tell me if I'm wrong. You're going about this entirely the wrong way, and I hope now you how I'm trying to stop it. So instead of discussing the discussion itself, how about we get a good reason for the names to be in the article, or remove them. 01:19, 2 Dec 2006

Exactly, Hinoa. I'm not going to rest until my name is removed. And once my name is gone you'll never hear about this again. Simple as that. --User:Nintendorulez 13:05, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Can't we all just get along?

Can't we? --Sir ENeGMA (talk) GUN WotM PLS 01:10, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

For holding hands and singing Kum-Bay-Yah. —Hinoa KUN (talk) 01:11, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

It's funny, I don't recall anyone saying we couldn't get along. --Hrodulf 02:12, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I do recall you saying, and I quote, "Waah waah waah is all I hear from the baby. Payback's a bitch, you little piece of shit. Go change that diaper, you've been carrying that turd euroipods in there for a whole year. FUCK YOU!!!!!!". That's not very nice, and I'm pretty sure it's at least partly directed at me. I don't remember doing anything to offend you. And I do remember doing nice things for you before. It's tempting to ban you for those comments and that picture, under the "don't be a dick" rule, but I'll restrain. Just remember to keep a civil tongue in your head when dealing with others, lest you lose it. Same as goes for everyone else. 03:00, 2 Dec 2006

Honesty is the foundation of a good relationship. --Hrodulf 03:28, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I say we cut the flaming, which I should point out that I never stooped to, and dicuss this in a completely civil and rational manner. I'm still waiting for a legitimate reason as to why my name should be left on the page. Can't anyone take my plea seriously? --User:Nintendorulez 13:12, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Nintendorulez, I have to say that you have behalved impeccably in this of late, unlike other people who should know better. In answer to your question I think it has already been answered, that the "Nin" reference is not aimed directly at you, rather at the ongoing rambling commentary that is the Euroipods Talk page, and the often "intense" opposition to its featuring. -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me)

It's back to Anais Nin again in any event. Which I'd like to point out was my doing back in April, 2006. When I saw back then that it just got reverted back, I pretty much gave up on what looked like a lost cause, but originally I was trying to change it in such a way that everyone would be happy.

I never had any personal concern about the content of euroipods. I don't even particularly like the article; I do appreciate its "anti-article"-ness on a philosophical level, but that doesn't mean I like it. I do, however, have a personal concern about a "war" over one word in there that was sucking up user time that could be used for something more worthwhile here, like actually writing articles that are funny and not "funny because they're not funny," if you catch my meaning. It was my goal all along to end the euroipods war, regardless of which side won, and from where I'm standing, it looks like I've accomplished that.

My role in this story changed a few times. At first I tried to help Nin (back in April), that didn't work. Then I decided to help him by example, putting my own name in the article and showing how I'd deal with it. The example became better than I'd planned when the whole Children of Hrodulf incident unfolded, but since my psuedo zen commentary on the situation didn't work, my remaining options for effectively ending this pointless bickering were limited. So I ended it in a different way, and now it's finally over.

So here's to an Uncyclopedia free from the euroipods conflict. There's no question in my mind it's an improvement. --Hrodulf 16:23, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

It's still a reference to me. Why not just make it Bob or Steve or something? --User:Nintendorulez 18:27, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

“You've learned absolutely nothing tonight, have you?”

~ John Kramer on learning nothing
--Hrodulf 20:21, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

The Euroipods cycle: A matter of proportions

Let me sumer it up for you:

• 1.Euroipods gets featured. The article itself is crap, it's featuring is a good pun on the highlighting method convencionalism. Funny.
  
• 2.Some people don't get the joke, they complain, and by doing so they make the irony of its featuring even more clear and pronounced. Very funny.
  
• 3.People continue to complain taking it beyond all reasonable proportions. Hilarious.
  
• 4.a.Pictures, "crusades", reskins and other stuff are made to moke such lack of proportions. Very funny.
  
• 4.b.At the same time, the person who takes it more out of proportions gets "punished", baned for trying to "improve it", moked in the article itself by adding a reference to his nickname, etc. Very funny.
  
• 5.He now complains not only on the article's featuring, but takes the complains on the "punishments" out of all proportions too. Funny.
  
• 6.Some people who moked his lack of proportions, take things out of proportions themselves and for months keep "tormenting" the poor idiot who himself won't stop complaining about the reference on him/his stupidity on the article. No so funny anymore, tedious.
  
• 7.More people take sides bitching politely or less politely one to the other, now not about the article's featuring but about the fair/unfair punishment. Not funny at all, unberable.

Ok, I know the whole story could be framed a little different to one side or the other, but I find my recount to be pretty fair. Others may evaluate differently when it stopped to be funny or if it was funny on the first place. Still, allow me to drive some conclutions fom it.

• Nin: you justified your name being left there for a long time by making the whole thing funny through your childish lack of proportions. However you took your stubborness one step further until you succeded to make it stop being funny. Seriously, you need to learn to takes things easier to chill out, you'll see the sun is shinier when you do. The last goes for S.U. too.
• Mhaille, Elvis and others, it was funny for a long time, but you failed to see we arrived to point 6 and 7 long ago. You took things out of proportions too, not any worse than Nin. Don't be that proud next time.
• Hodruff. Adding your name next to Nin's was a great and gentile gesture, you would have set a good example. But instead of staying at the "see, my name is there too, is not that a big deal" you had to make a big deal of it aswell, what a pity. Next time follow you own advices, relax. And for the love of Belcebu, please, stop whoring your articles.---Asteroid B612 (aka Rataube) - Ñ 17:33, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Spin, spin, spin

Look, you can all spin this however you want, I don't care. All I'm saying, and all I've ever said, is that the practice of admins attacking established users in main article space is abhorrent and should be ended. It kills morale, the users can't defend themselves, and it tells n00bz they should go elsewhere with their creative urges, because it could just as easily happen to them. And guess what? They don't do that on Wikipedia, or any other Wikia that I know of, and believe me, I know of a hell of a lot of them. They only do that on Encyclopedia Dramatica. If the people prolonging this fiasco want this website to descend to that kind of quality level, then just keep it up.

As of right now, 11:30 Central Time in the US, the reference is still in the article, and in fact is even worse, because Anais Nin was female, and User:Nintendorulez is not. This is, in my useless opinion, connotative. Moreover, we have only a tentative decision by one admin to attempt to enforce a solution that removes those three letters. In effect, nothing has been resolved yet, and it's too early for anyone, and I do mean anyone, to congratulate themselves.  c • > • cunwapquc? 17:47, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Dude, it's being taken too far, but you can't deny that at the beggining he had it coming, he brought it upon himself. You might have you reasons to take it so peronaly, but try to see both sides of it, I'm sure you can. Don't exagerate, that's not a wide practice and in the case of Nin he almost begged for something of a kind. That's not something that could easily happen to any n00b, he worked hard for it. We can disscus if that was the apropiate way to handle the whole thing, maybe he should has just been baned from the site for a longer time if not permanently. But don't deny he has his part in the whole mess too, and you too to be fair. I'm confident Famine's proposal/determination will be implemented soon and the name will be removed. Meanwhile, let's all just calm down and enjoy the other 19.869 articles. A su salud!---Asteroid B612 (aka Rataube) - Ñ 18:03, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, on all counts. You're right, it would take some real effort for a n00b to manage something like that!  c • > • cunwapquc? 18:12, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but the only thing that's been spinning in my neighborhood lately is David Blaine. And if I'm discussing a subject, and one of my own articles happens to be the best way I can illustrate that subject, I'm going to link to it. Your reaction to that isn't my problem. --Hrodulf 18:17, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

P.S. I know everyone's mad at me, which I find sort of funny, since I don't remember any venting of bile over Children of Hrodulf when that masterpiece hit the main space. But that's ok, since as you've noticed, the last thing I needed was assistance in responding to that situation appropriately. If you still want an explanation for my actions, click here. That's the only explanation that's needed, and even that's redundant and unnecessary. --Hrodulf 20:40, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

At times, it does seem like people have forgotten all about Neuroipods, to be honest! Including me.  c • > • cunwapquc? 18:22, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sick of all the admins saying this debate is over. No, it isn't. Nobody has reached a consensus. And I fully agree that users should not be attacked in the mainspace, unless they state that they don't mind. That was my argument from the beginning of all this. --User:Nintendorulez 18:31, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

It's utterly incredible to me that we can have articles here that ridicule, mock and offend everyone and everything, but apparently to some people, the moment they're the target of the joke, it's not funny anymore. I won't go further, since it's already covered by Uncyclopedia:Content_Disclaimer. And, of course, by the rest of this forum. --Hrodulf 19:26, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

*Heavy Sigh...*

Nin. Buddy. Look. You have become, whether you like it or not, an integral part of Euroipods, if for no other reason, because of your constant bickering about it. The more you bicker about it, the more integral a part of it you become. So... shut up. Euroipods is one, big, stupid in-joke. I personally hate it. But what I hate more is the constant fighting about it. So, even though I despise the article, I keep a good mind and I STFU about it. You should do the same. Just accept that you have become part of it BECAUSE YOU WOULDN'T SHUT UP ABOUT IT. -- §<