Wikipedia talk:Don't shoot yourself in the foot

Attribution

07:29, 15 February 2010 Ricky81682 (441 bytes) 
07:28, 15 February 2010 Ricky81682 (3,002 bytes) 
21:46, 5 February 2010 Ktr101 (3,002 bytes) 
09:54, 5 February 2010 MrMacMan (3,001 bytes) 
07:31, 5 February 2010 67.170.86.33 (2,280 bytes) 
07:30, 5 February 2010 67.170.86.33 (3,001 bytes) 
07:30, 5 February 2010 67.170.86.33 (2,280 bytes) 
04:52, 5 February 2010 Tarc (3,001 bytes) 
02:16, 5 February 2010 67.170.86.33 (2,280 bytes) 
21:31, 4 February 2010 Kevin (3,001 bytes) 
20:30, 4 February 2010 69.122.124.117 (2,989 bytes) 
04:23, 4 February 2010 7 (3,001 bytes) 
02:19, 4 February 2010 7 (3,014 bytes) 
00:45, 4 February 2010 Atama (3,001 bytes) 
00:20, 4 February 2010 Cyclopia (1,522 bytes) 
00:20, 4 February 2010 Cyclopia (3,001 bytes) 
00:18, 4 February 2010 144.189.100.25 (217 bytes) 
00:16, 4 February 2010 Cyclopia (3,001 bytes) 
00:09, 4 February 2010 144.189.100.25 (217 bytes) 
21:50, 3 February 2010 Kevin (3,001 bytes) 
19:37, 3 February 2010 Unitanode (2,989 bytes) 
07:34, 15 January 2010 Graham87 (2,976 bytes) 
15:54, 12 January 2010 Pablo X (2,976 bytes) 
15:47, 12 January 2010 Pablo X (2,912 bytes) 
17:04, 6 January 2010 Atama (2,981 bytes) 
12:14, 6 January 2010 Kittybrewster (2,989 bytes) 
02:16, 20 December 2009 Giants27 (2,922 bytes) 
22:45, 19 December 2009 Thumperward (2,930 bytes) 
00:14, 11 December 2009 Harej (2,975 bytes) 
16:09, 7 December 2009 Mike R (2,983 bytes) 
18:00, 5 December 2009 68.99.154.144 (2,973 bytes) 
16:24, 5 December 2009 Mike R (2,983 bytes) 
15:08, 5 December 2009 68.99.154.144 (2,973 bytes) 
21:29, 3 December 2009 Crotalus horridus (2,983 bytes) 
15:50, 9 October 2009 Atama (2,975 bytes) 
00:18, 9 October 2009 Mike R (2,967 bytes) 
23:43, 22 September 2009 Atama (2,957 bytes) 
23:36, 22 September 2009 Atama (2,819 bytes) 
23:34, 22 September 2009 Atama (2,883 bytes) 
23:32, 22 September 2009 Atama (2,896 bytes)

Do not link BLPs in the "See also" section of a pejorative essay

There is a reason the original essay was deleted. Personally, I think any editor who uses the name of a BLP as a pejorative should be blocked. Scottaka UnitAnode 05:15, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I left a friendly note for that user. As an aside, WP:PETARD looks a lot like WP:RETARD on my screen :) Kevin (talk) 08:33, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Although I created the original essay and argued to Keep it in the two MfDs that resulted, I concur that absolutely no linking to this essay through a name should be done, per consensus at the last MfD. -- Atama頭 21:53, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

better names

I know we can't return to the glory days of the now-unmentionable name, but "footshot", "ouch", and "petard" just aren't cutting it IMO. Can we brainstorm something snazzier? Tarc (talk) 18:51, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I've added a section about "immunity", because I think that's really what's going on; people will go to ANI and other venues thinking that because they are the person making the report that the discussion can only be about the person they're reporting. I can't remember how many times I've seen someone say, "but this is about them, not me". Maybe WP:IMMUNE? Or maybe WP:BOOMERANG. Just throwing out some ideas. -- Atama頭 19:35, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

o_0 Boomerang would be awesome, yea. Tarc (talk) 20:09, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:RICOCHET ? –xeno^talk 20:23, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but...

Shouldn't this be deleted per WP:BEANS? NERDYSCIENCEDUDE (✉ msg • changes) 23:29, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I've thought about it, but it's almost the opposite of what's being argued at BEANS. "Don't put beans up your nose" is giving people ideas about misbehavior that they might then emulate, but I don't believe anything in this essay suggests something that a person shouldn't do. (If there is, then it should be removed.) Some might argue that editors should take complaints to noticeboards when they're truly at fault, in order to accidentally report themselves, and I acknowledge that there's some logic to that.

However, you should also consider this... We (the community) are in the interest of avoiding disruption, not necessarily catching people and "punishing" them. Any editor who brings an issue to a noticeboard is surely unaware that they're being disruptive themselves. If they knew, they wouldn't have tried to bring attention to the situation. If an editor instead considers this essay and reviews their own behavior, and realizes they might have crossed the line themselves, then hopefully they'll voluntarily stop the disruption, if for no other reason than to avoid being blocked.

I don't have a lot of hope that this essay will be effective in that way, but I also doubt it will cause harm. The essay mostly serves to explain why people can get in trouble when they complain to a noticeboard, when Wikipedia seems to "punish the victim". That's primarily why I added the section about not having immunity, too often I see someone complaining that people are changing the subject when their own conduct is questioned. This essay might explain that they in fact do not have such immunity. -- Atama頭 21:28, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, if a user does what we tell him/her not to do, the user helps us with enforcement of the policies - several vandals and sockpuppets have been caught through reports to WP:Edit filter/false positives, users who eggage in edit warring some times get caught due to a report at WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. I don't think that BEANS is an issue here. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:35, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

This article smells like cherries

Honestly and sincerely think, the frequency that an editor announces or threatens "BOOMERANG", is inversely indicative of their intelligence. (I'd like a summary of the top users, so as to know who to avoid and dismiss as empty-headed loudmouths.)

BOOMERANG has become an operative substitute for thinking (which consumes calories and is so God-awful painful to do), and has become at WP like a growth on one's body one would want to see their doctor about right away. "Spartacus! Spartacus!" seems to have been supplanted by "BOOMERANG! BOOMERANG!" I've seen an editor write after making such a threat, "They even have an article on it." (The phrase "they even" tips one off that all thinking has stopped. It's so much easier and self-aggrandizing to announce "I think we have a BOOMERANG", or "I see a BOOMERANG here", or simply "BOOMERANG!". It makes one look so smart, doesn't it? And oh-so clever to be the first in the group to recognize and pinpoint the sweet irony before everyone – and so succinctly and stylishly, too!)

If the article wasn't so abused, there'd be no problem. But it is abused at WP, everyday and probably every hour of every day. (When it's abused, people are abused.) Human weakness is vanity and power-irresponsibility. Why give a glove that fits that hand perfectly? I don't believe in book burning. But neither would I fill up the backyard swimming pool with cherry Kool-Aid, though it might be a cool thing to do; it would look pretty and smell nice, and get in the local newspaper and maybe even the Guiness Book. But it'd draw a lot of ants, mosquitoes, earwigs and other bugs, damage the system, and create an expensive cleanup mess. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 10:40, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

This article is a classic case of "dumbing down", and I challenge anyone to defend it. It is abused and misused, in a cascading dumbing down that has been falsely and stupidly attributed with some kind of virtue, in ANI discussions. Does stupidity rule? Then keep this article the way it is, and let the crap continue to flow from abuse of it. The article itself starts off as humorous, but kind people, the way it is used, and the frequency in which it is quoted, is no laugh. Basically, the use of this article sucks, and the abuse that flows from it sucks, and its continued reference in line with the dumbing down sucks. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 17:24, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I was the one who originally wrote this essay, and I also came up with the "boomerang" shorthand (see above on this page). I could get into the history of why I did both but doing so would be a BLP violation (no, that is not at all a joke). Suffice to say that it is very common practice for editors to suffer by bringing complaints to a commonly-trafficked area, and in doing so to illustrate their own misbehavior in the process. When this happens, they protest that as the complainant they should have some sort of immunity. I wrote this essay as a way to illustrate why they don't, and shouldn't. If you feel that the essay has been misused, I apologize, that definitely was not my intention when I first came up with it. -- Atama頭 00:16, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

You realize the effect though is that only those with squeaky clean histories get to point out the wrongdoing of others? That's not how it works in the real world. You can anonymously call the police, for example. Or if you do so with your own name, your harshest critics are not present to tell the police all the bad things they think you've done. I agree that it works this way. I disagree that it should. Handpolk (talk) 13:12, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

The page does not set practice, it describes practice. It is a fact that if anyone reports another user to a popular noticeboard that their behaviour will also be scrutinized. This is not a court of law, it is a project to make an encyclopedia and as such comparisons with the police are far from apt. I don't think it is a reasonable statement that only "squeaky clean" people can make reports, just take a look at some of the people who post on ANI and their block logs.

While sometimes people do start shouting boomerang in situation that perhaps do not call for it it is generally not actually done unless there is very good reason for it. Frankly I think there needs to be a deterrence from the regular petty tattling that goes on and an examination of the reporter is just perfect in my book. Chillum 14:00, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

As someone who just waded into ANI for the first time, I have to agree that the vindictive over-use of WP:BOOMERANG is out of control. I strongly agree with Handpolk. --Westwind273 (talk) 11:58, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

What does this article achieve other than vindictive threats and act as a "chilling effect" for trying to discourage reporting bad behavior? Wqwt (talk) 05:26, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Added a new section

While reporting is not immunity, neither is announcing BOOMERANG. If the person who made the report finds themselves in trouble, that does not mean what they reported instantly becomes irrelevant and not subject to investigation. We still must AGF and focus on the content, not the person, as it relates to their report itself. Handpolk (talk) 13:06, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Another editor said my addition was 'about a different topic' and I disagree. Maybe my section can be under a heading like 'What BOOMERANG does not mean' or something like that. But it is very relevant to this essay. As people often say the exact opposite when they cite this essay. Implying that BOOMERANG = immunity for the person originally reported. And that isn't the case. Handpolk (talk) 15:37, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

But many noticeboard reports are about a person, not the content. AN, ANI and AE deal with editor misconduct so it is a discussion about editor behavior, including that of the filer and everyone who comments, it is not a content discussion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:30, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

If you have a point to make, go write your own essay rather than pointily adding irrelevant sections to existing ones. Tarc (talk) 17:04, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Euryalus can you please clarify the sanctions and how I'm supposed to handle this. My understanding is that I'm not to engage anyone who participates in the GGC articles. I'm fine with that. But they are stalking me. One reverted me on this article and responded here, another is responding to me here. One has vandalized my user page, two responded to my talk page, one of those responded to me elsewhere etc. I'm not allowed to respond to any of these people but they can follow me around wherever I go harassing me? Is that accurate? Handpolk (talk) 17:09, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Seriously? My advice would be to stop mucking about with obvious relitigation of the ANI thread and go edit some article content unrelated to Gamergate. -- Euryalus (talk) 19:59, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

I asked for clarification of the sanctions. Am I not allowed to respond to these people stalking me and responding to everything I do or say? Including on my own talk page? Handpolk (talk) 20:21, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

You are not allowed to make any edits relating to the areas covered by your topic ban. There are some standard exceptions listed at WP:BAN. -- Euryalus (talk) 20:24, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry but you still have not answered my question. The confusion is here: "people associated with (a) or (b)". What does 'people' mean? Does that refer to BLP's or Wikipedia editors or...? Handpolk (talk) 20:32, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Handpolk, "people associated with Gamergate" are individuals like Milo Yiannopoulos or Brianna Wu, it doesn't refer to Wikipedia editors. I don't know if this is a big surprise but people on Wikipedia disagree with each other all of the time and still work together. There are editors here who can't stand each other but they find a way to coexist without interaction bans. It's just being an adult. For instance, I know there are editors here who disagree with me or don't have respect for me but, you know, live and let live. If they want to give me a message, they are free to post on my talk page as long as they aren't insulting. Everyone gets notices and warnings, by the way.

You'll be a happier editor if you don't try to avoid or banish editors you've had a conflict with. In fact, it would be a sign of maturity if we could interact without claims of stalking or vandalism. I'm not going away, you shouldn't go away, it's likely we'll run into each other so let's get along. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:49, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. I thought it meant you could reply to me but I couldn't reply to you, which would clearly be hell and made no sense. I would still appreciate it if people would not follow me around Wikipedia. Running into the same people is one thing. But if I edit my favorite TV show and three GG editors who have never edited that article before show up and revert me and argue with me on the talk page -- that would not seem very...cool, is the best word I can think of. Not cool. Handpolk (talk) 22:28, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

This particular “vandal” responded to an invitation to discuss your private little Gamergate reddit on your talk page. I mentioned for the benefit of third parties that (a) their compliance with your request might seem to be luring you into violating your topic ban, and (b) you couldn't participate in that discussion anyway. Having fallen afoul of such lures myself in my youth, I thought a hazard warning made sense -- and said so. MarkBernstein (talk) 17:14, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

I'd had this page on my watchlist for years, for the record, I'm listed up in the old attributes section above, from back when it was named after a certain unfortunate football player. I'd rather not see it sullied with wiki-wars imported from other venues, which is why the addition was reverted. Tarc (talk) 00:12, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

My apologies. Seemed like a very strange coincidence. Though I doubt Liz and MarcBernstein have the same background with this article.

I do feel strongly this article should be modified to reflect the ways that BOOMERANG can be misused either in practice or in rhetoric. However this does relate to a very fresh wound for me and this is not time sensitive. I will revisit this at a later date with a cool head, if I still feel the same way. Handpolk (talk) 06:54, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

In 2 days or 2 months, the response here will still be the same. Wikipedia essays aren't policy, and aren't really meant to be cited as such; no one banned or blocked you or whatever for the literal reason of "Banned per WP:BOOMERANG". The essay simply summarizes a community norm, that if one has been behaving badly and files a complaint against another editor who they think is also behaving badly, the complainant is likely tp be sanctioned as well. This isn't a Wikipedia originiality, see the unclean hands doctrine. Tarc (talk) 12:21, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

The response from you may be the same. You do not speak for every editor nor do you own this essay. I asked for a section to be added that explains what BOOMERANG is not and I think that would be very appropriate. Namely, it's not immunity for the reported party. Handpolk (talk) 12:28, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

When the filer is an un-constructive single-purpose account looking to goad others into trouble, the boomerang will slam back into them every time. Any addition of this nature in the future will be reverted. Tarc (talk) 14:17, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I've never seen that scenario so I can't comment on it. However there are other scenarios where exceptions should be noted. I caution you again against attempting to claim ownership of this essay. Your opinion is your opinion. I've heard it. Thank you. Handpolk (talk) 14:30, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 10 October 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (non-admin closure) sst✈ 08:15, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

---

Wikipedia:Don't shoot yourself in the foot → Wikipedia:Don't throw the boomerang – This essay has multiple shortcuts, but WP:BOOMERANG is by far the most common, with countless links from WP:ANI, and even shortened to simply "boomerang". When I get as far as speculating that Oscar Wilde threw a WP:BOOMERANG at John Douglas, 9th Marquess of Queensberry, maybe the title should reflect the everyday usage. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:51, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose I am not familiar with the phrase "Don't throw the boomerang" indeed I can't find uses of such [1]; but "Don't shoot yourself in the foot" is widely used, and descriptive of the topic, while boomerang(ing) would be a good short shortcut. The proposed title is not descriptive or idiomatic and does not indicate what this essay is about. The current title uses a widely used idiomatic phrase that indicates what this is about -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 18:04, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. Never heard "don't throw the boomerang" before. I suspect most people know what "don't shoot yourself in the foot means". The former isn't an especially good phrase anyway, as it doesn't really mean very much (many boomerangs aren't designed to come back and those that are are designed to be caught by the thrower, not hit them!)-- Necrothesp (talk) 13:57, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. I'm not familiar with the term "don't throw the boomerang" and it would appear others aren't either. As an alternative, I would suggest just moving this to WP:Boomerang. Calidum 11:59, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. Never heard of it. Support Wikipedia:Boomerang, which it is well known as, far better than by the current title. If it must be a saying, it is closer to "people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones" or Wikipedia:Don't call the kettle black, the latter interestingly links "Wikipedia:BOOMERANG" among other essays linked by title. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:29, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Wording

@Edward321: - would you like to expand on your rather brief edit summary here [2] and explain why you feel the wording was better before? My view is that my change made the page more accurate: let's say I post on ANI to complain about an edit war. Clearly, those under scrutiny will involve anyone involved in the incident (i.e. the edit war), not anyone involved in the discussion (e.g. any random admin who offers their view). No? Amisom (talk) 08:21, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

But the biggest problems occur in the discussions, not the just the content changes. --Ronz (talk) 17:08, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

@Ronz: Then we need to cover both in the essay, surely. It's ridiculous to suggest that someone involved in the incident can't be criticised if they just stay away from the discussion? Amisom (talk) 19:38, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

And that's my concern as well. How about wording that clearly covers all participation that cannot be interpreted as excluding discussion? --Ronz (talk) 19:47, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Anyone who participated in the incident or joins the discussion might find their actions under scrutiny? Amisom (talk) 20:07, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

It's a bit wordy. Again, it's turning the emphasis away from the discussion. I'm no fan of "incident", which is the term used for ANI, but in my experience not used much elsewhere.

Anyone who participated in the incident or discussions might find their actions under scrutiny?

Anyone who participated in the dispute or discussions might find their actions under scrutiny? --Ronz (talk) 21:09, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

I like the second one :) Amisom (talk) 21:18, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

My edit improved by you.

@User:EEng So you have managed to improve my edit which was to be perfect. Good for you :-)

Of course, even modern "intelligent" noticeboards do not yet understand much, so the word "receive" is better. But you also wrote: "reports" could be a disease, which is a novelty to me. Do you mean some specific disease or a disease in general? When you use Google and compare "is an infectious disease" and "is an infectious report", the results contradict your assertion. Do you mean that the syntax with "get" is inappropriate because it suggests a theoretical disease called "reports"? 85.193.252.19 (talk) 18:28, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm trying to decide whether you're serious. (My edit summary wasn't, though my edit was.) EEng 13:13, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

@User:EEng Well, I took your edit summary seriously, which I am not proud of. The whole time I was realizing that it could be humorous or even sarcastic, but I take Wikipedia seriously, and you did not add any emoticon. I think that humor should never be used anywhere in Wikipedia, including edit summaries, because it can be easily misinterpreted. For example, I put much time and effort trying to understand what you meant. You could have written something like this: "get reports" sounds like "get some disease" so "receive reports" is a better wording. Instead you wrote: "reports" could be a disease, so "get reports" might mean the noticeboard contracts some illness, which sounds pretty serious. And because English is full of illogical idioms I thought that "get reports" was one of them. Did you have a good time?;-) 85.193.252.19 (talk) 03:11, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Why do we warn anyone?

This is a fundamental question, because if you are a victim of a "boomerang" and your own bad edits are detected and reverted, then the quality of Wikipedia will improve, which is what we want (at least we should). However the current article is commonly used as a deterrent sending a simple message: "Do not report anyone because you may harm yourself". Whenever someone suggests that you should read WP:BOOMERANG first, they do not worry about you - they worry about themselves :-). The typical pattern comes down to "Go to WP:ANI but... it is better not to, because you may get into trouble". But your adversary does want you to get into trouble. The only problem is that this is a double-edged sword which can put your adversary into trouble as well.:-) 85.193.252.19 (talk) 20:50, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

We warn people who abuse administrator message boards by making numerous (and often unwarranted) reports against other editors with the expectation that the reporter has immunity from the consequences of policy violations. Like all policies and most essays on Wikipedia, the goal is not to "get someone in trouble". The goal is to prevent trouble before it happens. That includes this essay, which asks editors to think before making a report. It's easy to abuse the reporting process if you're not concerned about the consequences for yourself. Someone who reads this essay (or is referred to it) may be less likely to abuse that process. That saves everyone a lot of unnecessary trouble, including the reporter, the person being reported, and the administrators who have to waste time dealing with unwarranted reports. Sundayclose (talk) 22:07, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Request that John's Gospel is quoted correctly, or that it is stated in the article that it is not quoted correctly...

I went to correct the quote from John 8, and hidden from display in the article, there was text in the edit box that said:

"If you've noticed that that last bit isn't actually part of the quote, be assured that your fellow editors will also have no trouble noticing. No need to "correct"."

Therefore, I thought I had better request on the talk page, that it is either corrected or labelled (as a humourous misquote), on the basis that it is not in fact obvious!

Assuming anyone who edits the English wikipedia will be familiar with the detail of the text in the middle of St. John's Gospel seems to me to underestimate the scope of the backgrounds of the people probably involved in the project. Editing the English wikipedia is a worldwide enterprise and will include plenty of people from non-Christian majority countries, and plenty of non-native speakers (a native speaker of English might notice the unlikely grammar).

Perhaps the sentences that are not originally part of the quote could be removed from the quote box, and placed in the text, or something like "well, sort of" be added, to make it clear to unsuspecting bystanders that it is a misquote? FloweringOctopus (talk) 17:32, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

I agree with your assessment. The last bit was completely unnecessary. I've adjusted the page accordingly. — Greentryst ^T_C 14:43, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

@FloweringOctopus and Greentryst: I understand the need to be sure the Bible verse is correctly quoted. And I understand the need to remove the humorous comment from the quotation marks. But why do we need to remove the humorous comment altogether? Thus: "Let the one among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her." Seriously. You better be without sin. Sundayclose (talk) 14:56, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

In my opinion, the quote on its own is amusing, succinct, and effective. I feel that the added bit actually dilutes the humor of it. If you disagree, though, I wouldn't be opposed to your modified version. — Greentryst ^T_C 15:12, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Personally I don't see any humor in a Bible verse. It illustrates the concept, but without humor. Pinging editor who added the verse: EEng. Sundayclose (talk) 16:08, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate the ping, but for crying out loud!

• Humor is allowed on Wikipedia, even in articles, as long as it doesn't interfere with our goal of informing (and it sometimes furthers that goal, because it makes a point memorable).
• Humor is CERTAINLY allowed in project space (ditto the parenthetical above) and CERTAINLY ABSOLUTELY FOR SURE in an essay.
• To some extent it's fun to drag in an overquoted verse, just for the hokey ponderousness of it. But to make it memorable, nothing beats inserting some a slightly jarring off-register text, which clearly doesn't actually belong, as if it did. You don't need to be familiar with the bible, or a Christian, or whatever, to recognize it isn't actually part of the quote -- you only need to be reasonably familiar with formal writing, which would never start a sentence with "Seriously...".

The original is best, IMHO, but I don't have the energy to fight today so I've installed Sundayclose's idea. EEng 19:12, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree that humor is allowed, especially in essays. The only issue in my thinking is where the quotation marks go, although I have no problem with restoring the original. Sundayclose (talk) 19:19, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't think anyone disputes that humor is fine and normal for project space. My line of thinking is that the "hokey ponderousness" is precisely what delivers the humor here. The sober gravitas of the Bible quote is juxtaposed with the levity of the boomerang metaphor, and the mortal threat involved in the quote contrasts with the frivolity of getting in trouble on the Internet.

I'm not going to change anything further – I just want to clarify why I preferred the unadorned quote. — Greentryst ^T_C 21:06, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

I think humor is in the ear (or brain) of the beholder. For some of us who are more prone to literal interpretation of what we read, the humor of a Bible verse doesn't hit home unless we get a little additional nudge to confirm that it's supposed to be funny. But I can see how some readers would find that superfluous, or even intellectually insulting. Sundayclose (talk) 22:06, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

For heaven's sake, surely by now everyone knows that the superfluous or intellectually insulting are my stock in trade! EEng 23:33, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

@EEng@Greentrystand@Sundayclose I'm fine with that solution: i.e. with the removal of the words that aren't part of the quote from the speech commas. I only object to actually having it misquoted.

EEng: Thanks for accepting the change. Humour is good but I would argue it should stay in a form which can't become disinformation. I found it obvious, it's true, and would have done regardless of my specific knowledge of the text. But English is my mother-tongue and this is the world-wide-web. I would maintain that there are plenty of people on wiki with nothing like the knowledge of the difference between formal and informal English that would be required to spot the second phrase as impossibly out of place. I knew someone totally fluent in spoken English, who nevertheless wrote as if they were speaking and would never see a minor nuance of that type. It takes a very high level of fluency to see that sort of difference in register. And if people aren't familiar with the Bible, they would not necessarily know that it was usually translated in formal language. (To confuse things further, there are informal translations around which do include phrases like, "Jesus was a great hit"). Humour, moreover, is very culture-specific (as Sundayclose points out).

The Bible is a work of import: it matters that people do not suppose it to say things it doesn't say. Theologians have enough trouble with serious questions about what it says and means!

Anyway, when I find the beam, I'll try to cast it out of my own eye... DUCK [as in "dodge," not "quack"]... :-P :-) FloweringOctopus (talk) 20:14, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Ouch! EEng 20:32, 6 June 2023 (UTC)