Talk:Don't be a dick/Archives/2008
|Please do not post any new comments on this page. This is a discussion archive first created in 2008, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date. See current discussion or the archives index.|
I preformed a few modifications for formatting's sake. I moved the Audio version down, which is fairly consistent with most pages on meta. I spaced the essay box, don't be a dick by using this reference, and don't be a dick title link extra spaces apart for visual prettiness. I also turned off the table of contents; a page that fits on two screens on most PC's doesn't really require one, and this one was making the page harder, not easier to read. Thank you for your time.--CastAStone//₵₳$↑₳₴₮ʘ№€ 20:22, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Great essay. I wish certain dicks I know would read it (and get it).
I have a question about the definition of being a dick and/or the lack thereof. The essay says that no definition is provided, making a point of this being deliberate. However, there is a note in the essay that nonetheless gives a definition: "an abrasive and inconsiderate person". Was that deliberate too?
- I would read "is generally defined as" as usually refers to. Hillgentleman 21:51, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Courtesy and etiquette and the nature of their relevancy
|To all the people who want this page deleted or renamed for reasons of courtesy or etiquette: this principle is not arguing for courtesy and etiquette. Behaving with courtesy and etiquette might be a consequence of following this principle - might be, they are by no means necessary for following it.
The entire reason to give the page and the principle a title like this is because you can dress up your speech with courtesy and etiquette and still behave like a complete dick, which is something that a great many people on WikiMedia projects do.
Check out Mr. 126.96.36.199 up above for example: he claims the imperative "don't be a dick" is "intellectually lazy and imprecise (fuzzy)" as if he can't understand it or something, which I'll bet is probably what he said in response to the person who cited the principle to him. The good old WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT feigned incomprehension.
Thanks for providing an example of being a dick while following rules of courtesy and etiquette, Mr. 188.8.131.52. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 15:37, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Here's another good example of this principle in action: the user Herbythyme and I just had a little tussle here on meta about the Don't be a dick essay page. Neither of us were particularly courteous: we both made reverts before going to discuss it on our user talk pages; but because neither of us were being dicks we uncovered the mutual misunderstandings and worked out the situation. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 14:05, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia or Uncyclopedia?
It reads as the former yet seems to be widely approved, even referenced, by experienced editors. I'm not referring to the use of the word 'dick', just the complete lack of useful information in this article.
As previously stated, i agree that an (possibly unwanted) effect of this article is a persistent conflict with w:WP:PA. Not to mention the more-than-questionable categorising of this article as an 'essay'. 184.108.40.206 19:56, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- At least we don't call it an article, eh? Rocket000 17:20, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- How does it "persistently conflict" with w:WP:NPA, anyway, considering that the latter seems to serve a similar function? 220.127.116.11 19:01, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
What is being a dick, exactly?
Can mere argument or discussion for a certain position, even with sound logic, against people who are unwilling to concede constitute "dickery" even if nothing like personal attacks, abusive comments, judgmental comments (like "I don't think he's worthy of being in this project" or something), and so on, are used? 18.104.22.168 01:15, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
- It's very subjective, unfortunately, and depends on who you're talking to as much as anything else. The essence of this essay, I think, is targeted towards people making random, unwarranted, abuse, off topic comments... stuff where it's easier to agree on dickery. giggy (:O) 02:37, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
- Are heated arguments necessarily a form of "dickery?" I'd say no, not if both parties are refusing to be even slightly malicious, and are genuinely maintaining respect for their opponents. Onlookers might mistakenly decide that one or both opponents are dicks, but only because onlookers cannot read minds and accurately determine intent. In order to avoid losing face, the opponents might be acting willfully ignorant (stupid.) But "being a dick" is different than stubborn stupid behavior.
- Subjectivity can be a side issue. Dickery, i.e. carelessly or willfully damaging your opponent's self-image, is a matter of intent, and unless we can read the dick's mind, a dick can successfully deceive onlookers and appear innocent. Their victims know full well that they've been attacked by a dick, yet nobody else does. Therefore, since deception and smoke-screens are often used by dicks to hide their malicious intent, subjectivity often isn't the issue but is part of the dick's intent to deceive. Heh, here's another dick move I've often seen: maliciously taking insult in order to appear as the innocent victim while making their opponents look like dicks. See, being a dick is very often a matter of intent.
- Another issue: "being a dick" versus "temporarily behaving like a dick." If I'm a dick, then my behavior is part of my personality, and I can't stop. Being exposed as a dick is then a very serious matter. :) --22.214.171.124 02:14, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the answers. 126.96.36.199 19:00, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
...has been deleted :( --Ron Ritzman 17:20, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
hmmm i can tell you what being a dick is, i think. a dick is a person that has nothing better to do than argue back and forth about irrelevant, mundane,obsolete, etc. topics such as this one. i mean, honestly, wikipedia is a good quick peek for basic information on a topic, but anyone who takes it seriously is just ridiculous. why? this is why, pages like this. this is why wikipedia will never be an accepted reference source (at least by anyone intelligent), and furthermore is only good for entertainment purposes or people who are too lazy to track down information from a credible source. now for a harsh opinion (get ready, i've found internet junkies are easily offended when they feel belittled): most of you so-called wiki's are probably pretty lame... i mean, seriously do you people have lives? sure this could be a legitimate hobby, i guess, but what about ummm i dunno going out and living. getting in a tizzie over these articles is probably the first sign that you have lost a meaningful life in society, so you therefore resort to the online world where you can feel important among others who are also intimidated (and this is probable for alot of you, even though you will surely deny it) by the outside world. if you find more comfort in cyberspace, well i feel sorry for ya's. you are missing out on a great world out there... getting laid, doing drugs/alcohol, enjoying nature, traveling, i could go on and on and on. anyways my point? well, i've been rambling so i kinda forgot some of it and i'm short on time (i have a girlfriend to pick up, we're going to a new ethiopian restaurant then we'll make love and maybe watch a comedy, or drama if i get my way). so yea anyway, you're a dick if you're missing life cuz you're in front of a computer screen all the time. yea i like getting online too, so i'm a hypocrite in a sense...but i draw the line somewhere and limit online time to maybe an hour a day... i def. don't see the time to edit articles....and for what??? its beyond me. i just wanted to through this out there...and i'm being serious too.. maybe someone will read this and be inspired. maybe it shouldn't be deleted right away.... think about it. not trying to offend anyone with this, trying to politely say: get a life hahaha good luck wiki's later
Suggestion for an image on this essay
I doubt there will be a consensus to put this on the article but it did make me laugh. --Ron Ritzman 03:49, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
- So why can't it be called "Don't be a dickcunttwatshitbollockfacewankerwillyarseholefartinajar"? Flobadobalob 12:26, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
- I don't think it'd be good on the article, but I can easily see that getting incorporated into a "This user isn't a dick" userbox. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:56, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
One edit too far? (maybe)
I made several edits to the "see also" section of the umm, "content page". Some of them (maybe all?) (or at least, the last one) may have been due to a misunderstanding. I was using a new browser (Chrome) and I [eventually] found that, there are some things that work correctly with Mozilla Firefox, that did not seem to work right, with Chrome -- at least, with the particular version of Chrome that I was using. I was working with a hyper link, and the ("#fragment" portion of the) URL did not seem to work right, at least when I did a right-click and chose "open in new tab" vs. a standard left-click. However, this was still the case [with Chrome!] even after the last change I made -- which might have been an unnecessary change. [It now works OK, at least with Firefox.] One or more of the previous changes might have been unnecessary, also. I didn't realize that there was any browser dependency until I had done 3 edits. (sorry). --Mike Schwartz 22:27, 2 October 2008 (UTC) (also known as Mike_Schwartz (talk) on en:WP)