by ed-it-or March 22, 2005
The people that approve of the definitions you post before it appears on Urban Dictionary. 75% of them are assholes that reject everything. They are responsible for most of your definitions that don't make it and rot.
Guy: Dog; an canine animal that barks
*5-90 Minutes later*
*Gets E-mail saying "Dog was not published"*
Guy: Those motherfucking editors are bitches sometimes.
*5-90 Minutes later*
*Gets E-mail saying "Dog was not published"*
Guy: Those motherfucking editors are bitches sometimes.
by Pokedex #184 August 20, 2017
Gatekeeper for the information world. Someone who allows or withholds and alters information whether to publication in a magazine, books or online, at their discretion. Often erroneously or to favour their own views.
The editors of urban dictionary are useless, they have like sixteen almost identical definitions for the same word, and most seem to be rants, and nobody can spell... Never mind eh?...
Don't believe what you read in the paper, the editor in chief is a left wing nutter and you'll rever get the full story, a lie by omission is still a lie...
Don't believe what you read in the paper, the editor in chief is a left wing nutter and you'll rever get the full story, a lie by omission is still a lie...
by SpeltWong February 16, 2012
The people who wrote most of the good definitions for the word editor. They weed out the idiotic defintions, and o.k. the good. They are my heroes.
ME. I AM AN EDITOR. You knew that was coming
Idiotic UD patron: "Julie
A smart, funny girl who everyone is jealous of because I am her boyfriend."
Me: "Not my fault you didn't read the rules dude.
D-E-N-I-E-D!"
Idiotic UD patron: "Julie
A smart, funny girl who everyone is jealous of because I am her boyfriend."
Me: "Not my fault you didn't read the rules dude.
D-E-N-I-E-D!"
by SushiMan May 25, 2008
by GoFkYourselfff May 13, 2013
by jajajudy May 8, 2008
A despicable, anal retentive human being whose only goal is to annoy a writer enough to inspire him or her. Their repressed sexual desires are shown through their egomaniacal, useless insertions in bold print, underlines, or annoying italics suggesting the writer does not understand what the writer is saying. An editor also receives distinct carnal pleasure in titling works for a writer, often not pertaining at all to the work. Examples include "Sense and Sensibility" and "Pride and Prejudice" as well as "Joe Biden Entitled To Better Media Coverage."
Editors do not understand what a dash is and refuse to accept that they do not know comma rules.
Editors do not understand what a dash is and refuse to accept that they do not know comma rules.
An editor's work:
I went to the bathroom and could not find toilet paper -- there was none. // reword this, it's awkward. I suggest "I went to the bathroom and could not find the toilet paper, there was none."
Editor: When I titled your article something that had nothing to do with your article, I came. After I added this paragraph about how little sense your paper made, I italicized the paragraph and came again. Then, I drank several quarts of scotch and, comma spliced.
I went to the bathroom and could not find toilet paper -- there was none. // reword this, it's awkward. I suggest "I went to the bathroom and could not find the toilet paper, there was none."
Editor: When I titled your article something that had nothing to do with your article, I came. After I added this paragraph about how little sense your paper made, I italicized the paragraph and came again. Then, I drank several quarts of scotch and, comma spliced.
by annoyedjournalist October 25, 2008