Talk:Wallflower E-mails 1

I'll let you guys know when I'm finished uploading these. These are formatted like shit. Clydec 00:26, 25 September 2010 (PDT)

I'll split up the article. I think this works best in 3 acts. Act 1: Intro. Act 2: Owls. Act 3: The end. This part is through. Have at it. Clydec 00:31, 25 September 2010 (PDT)

If chris doesn't believe I fucked The Wallflower now, idk what will. SurfShackTito 00:55, 25 September 2010 (PDT)

Like the ancient Hawaiians used to say: Even the thickest coconut will break if hit with a big enough rock.--Caboose -1 12:43, 25 September 2010 (PDT)

Censoring

You know, I've been thinking, I've always hated the "censored" part as censoring really isn't our bag. Would it be too much to use the term "redacted" instead or should we preserve Tito's choice of words. Thoughts?--Champthom 16:00, 9 April 2011 (PDT)

My opinion is to use 'redacted'. Although censored is technically correct, it has a negative conotation in today's society, implying "removal of alternate opinion". In fact, I'd recommend using 'redacted' but piping to the Wallflower Policy. --Ronichu 05:48, 10 April 2011 (PDT)

Rename

There's already articles named "Wallflower E-mails 2" and "Wallflower E-mails 3." This page makes it seem like it's covering all of those emails by not being numbered. --4CentUser (talk) 16:09, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Good point, renamed the page. Hurtful Truth Level (talk) 16:35, 2 October 2021 (UTC)