Wikipedia talk:Don't be a jerk

Lame edit war

I've just protected the page to stop an incredibly lame edit war over shortcuts. All of you should know better. Discuss it here, or let it go. If I see further edit warring when the protection expires I will not hesitate to liberally hand out blocks to all involved parties. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:57, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Um, I'd say this was already settled like 6 hours ago, bro. Tarc (talk) 21:03, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Quite. The only incredibly lame thing round here seems to be Beeblebrox's understanding of edit warring. I'm sure there's some pertinent advice round here somewhere... Yomangani^talk 00:26, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

It may have been settled, but you sir, danced right up to 3RR, and none of you even tried to discuss the matter. Ever hear of WP:BRD? I understand edit warring perfectly well thank you. Thanks for the personal attack though. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:13, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

At a stretch, there were two reverts in the past 24 hours (neither by me), probably because the discussion in the edit summaries seems to have been perfectly clear to everybody involved in editing. And if you think calling somebody's actions lame is a personal attack maybe you should revise your section title and opening remarks. Yomangani^talk 01:38, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

There's a difference. I said the edit war was lame. You said my understanding of the edit warring policy was lame. One is a description of a situation. The other is a description of a personal trait. I didn't make it personal, you did. It takes a minimum of two persons to edit war, there were three of you changing the shortcuts repeatedly without trying to discuss on the talk page. We don't need that anywhere, be it in articles or in project space. Edit summaries are not a substitute for actual discussion. WP:AVOIDEDITWAR would be the relevant policy section should you care to review it. Here's a brief excerpt "Once it is clear that there is a dispute, avoid relying solely on edit summaries and discuss the matter on the article's talk page. The primary venue for discussing the dispute should be the article talk page." Pretty clear I should say. I think we're done here. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:56, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Arguing over semantics and trying to close out the conversation with an imperious statement? Nice. Still, I won't split hairs if you think your opening characterization of our actions is beyond reproach, and since you obviously have your own fixed ideas on how we should work it is pointless to continue discussing the recent editing. I think we're done here. Yomangani^talk 02:15, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I think we should all chill with a bit of spotted dick and call it a Christmas night. Tarc (talk) 01:54, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

LOL, I see the pun there! 51.9.101.23 (talk) 09:34, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

what would you do if you didn't have this project to link to?

I suppose you'd have to tell the person directly, "don't be a dick." Inconvenient because you might be held accountable for that eh? I mean maybe the community might investigate whether YOU are the dick! With this "Project", you can be cutesy about it and maybe even get away with some deniability "I didn't call you a dick, I just linked to WP:DICK. Yeah, it then states it plainly 'don't be a dick', but you know, I'm still not calling you a dick, cuz that in turn leads to some "essay" that makes some sort of high minded point. WP:DICK just exists to make that abstract point more concrete (unspoken: for dickheads like you!)" My own view is that only a dick links to WP:DICK and thinks that's clever. How about deleting this and being more imaginative instead?--Brian Dell (talk) 16:51, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

How about not doing that. This happens once a year or so, a user who apparently has not actually read the page comes along all mad about the word dick. They pitch a bitch fit here on the talk page, a parade of users comes along to tell them to actually read the page and maybe try to understand what it actually says instead of just reacting to the title, and that's all that happens. If someone linked you here in an innapropriate way, consider the possibility that they are the dick and that maybe you shouldn't take it out on this page. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:02, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

How about giving the "this isn't kindergarten" trope a rest and "consider the possibility" that instead of just "pitching a bitch" or getting my panties in a bunch or otherwise being not enough of a big boy to handle some name calling that I might have "actually read the page" before I came here and still fail to see why you need a soft redirect. If "they are the dick" then how does cavalierly enabling them with this smartass "project" raise the level of professionalism around here? It is the very fact that we can act like adults that renders this "project" entirely unnecessary in a mature community. How about answering my question directly and telling me what you would do without this and why that would be inadequate. Or maybe you are responding to someone else's objections instead of mine?--Brian Dell (talk) 17:32, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

yawn. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:18, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

This from the person who earlier on this same page lectured a third party about the need to "discuss the matter on the article's talk page." I see now why you need this page so badly... you could have declined to respond to me at all, but then I would have been unaware of your lack of respect for me. Calling someone a dick is just so very concise and precludes the need for further engagement.--Brian Dell (talk)

This from the person who's been edit-warring on my talkpage all afternoon and should soon be blocked for doing so ... nobody called you a dick dangerouspanda 18:54, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

An edit war over, incredibly, whether MY words say what I choose or what you choose. Beeblebrox is evidently the sort of character who has no time for nor interest in the substantive and serious question another Wikipedian poses on a Talk page, but does have the time to make that other Wikipedian aware of his lack of interest. One can see the redeeming value of this "project" to such characters: conveys one's attitude towards another quickly and concisely when one is not up for responding like an adult. Yet Beeblebrox nonetheless has the integrity to not edit those boring words of mine. Because it's your talkpage, "dangerous panda", I've told you several times that you have the option to delete my comments entirely. You could use also use strikeout and sign your name to your editing of my words so people know that there is more than one author of what is attributed to me. You also have the option of having the last word, even if it is just to link to WP:DICK again. But I will not countenance my being assigned the last word when those words are chosen by you. Before I'm told by a third party that this is entirely off-topic to this page, I will note that this is in fact a classic example of how WP:DICK is used in practice: when the target takes exception to the insinuation the user of WP:DICK insists "nobody called you a dick." In fact when I elsewhere said that "dangerous panda" had "instruct[ed] me to not be a 'dick'", "dangerous panda" claimed that that observation of mine was in fact a "lie."--Brian Dell (talk) 08:32, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Kid appropriateness

The title has a bad word. I would like it to be moved. Lightning BOLT! (talk) 12:06, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

There are lots of bad words on the internet. Get over it. --Onorem (talk) 20:35, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

C'mon we have child porn on here. Afronig (talk) 00:36, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Redirect to meta restored

This should not be undone without consensus. Also, in reading back through my old objections on this page, I'm rather in favor of softening the title and language, but that's really a discussion to be had on the meta talk page. Tarc (talk) 15:24, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Could you take a comparison of The one which the user added here and the one at Meta?? Tutelary (talk) 15:46, 11 October 2014 (UTC)