Talk:Don't be a jerk

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Votes for deletion Several proposals have been made concerning this page. Before making a new one, please review these discussions and their results (keep, change, or no consensus).

Archives of this page

elements of anger[edit]

I think this is one of the five pillars of Wikipedia "Editors should treat each other with respect and civility" but expressed in anger. the writer was really pissed however i liked some couple of points on the essay! Bobbyshabangu (talk) 12:42, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Title[edit]

Indeed, I don't think it's very appropriate to have Don't be a dick as the title. --Good afternoon (talk) 08:24, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, if efforts are made by the community to substantively rewrite or re-title this, I no longer stand in opposition. Tarc (talk) 15:03, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In light of efforts by some (myself included) to encourage the use of more civil language on Wikipedia (and other WM projects), I too support renaming/retitling this to "Don't be a jerk" or something like that. Something that most reasonable people would agree is more gender neutral. Lightbreather (talk) 18:30, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Really. I can be a jerk, but don't ever call me a dick! It's a gender equality thing after all. 108.18.72.55 04:25, 11 September 2014 (UTC) ada User:Carolmooredc[reply]

I would also support retitling to "Don't be a jerk". Mr. Granger (talk) 17:30, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dare we proceed or should we take it to a village pump or something?? Carolmooredc (talk) 18:58, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing neither nays or yays, will do nothing, cause who wants to get reverted on this one. But perhaps next week - or when I recover frm related burn out - will bring it up at one Enlish Wikiproject most likely to have reservations. Also since I see Wales has participated here, could bring it up there as things develop. But another crusade for another week - or month... Carolmooredc (talk) 12:59, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bold edit made. See if anyone reverts. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:46, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted. The proposed revision failed civility, among other things, in that it didn't sufficiently warn the reader about treating other people well.
I don't see consensus for the rename and I'd also like to see an assessment on the suitability of the new proposed term in terms of understanding by non-native speakers of English. What word translates best to other languages? It's unwise to change established terminology without considering this. --Nemo 16:33, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, six people have voiced an opinion in favour of the change. The claim that DICK is not offensive on other languages is, IMO, absurd. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:47, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support the change as well. I thought the title was funny once, but it feels a bit dated and tired now. Andreas JN466 05:11, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So glad that the revert warring has started. User:Nemo bis, have you ever considered talking and then starting reverting? Some common courtesy around here would go a long way. Ajraddatz (talk) 16:58, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a wider forum in wikimedia.org for discussing this? Otherwise, the consensus does seem to be to change, including in light of the Foundation's desire to attract more women editors. 108.18.74.120 18:06, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is no wider proper discussion page than this one as far as Meta is concerned. I fear that people who do patellar reflex reverts seem to rule, alas. Collect (talk) 18:09, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What about Gender gap strategy Initiative 4: More friendly-space policies? That's on Meta. Djembayz (talk) 00:33, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


AFAICT, we now have at least seven supporting the changes, and a single voice opposing them here. Nemo -- if you REALLY love the current status, start an RfC to support your singular position. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:30, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Will someone perform the move? The consensus is clear. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:36, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Teles has moved and move-protected the page. Hopefully if people have concerns they will raise them here instead :-) Ajraddatz (talk) 16:31, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
They don't have the Thank feature here so THANK YOU TELES!!! 108.48.225.115 18:31, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I just moved it on En.Wikipedia so the fur should be flying soon, in case anyone can/wants to protect it there or knows someone who will. Feel free to do so on any other language pages that link to it. 108.48.225.115 aka User:Carolmooredc
We've now substituted a colloquialism that is widely used across English-speaking countries for one that is used almost exclusively in the US. Lovely piece of systemic bias, that is. (unsigned comment)

"Jerk" also has Canadian, Australian, New Zealand, and UK usage, inter alia. Sorry -- the cavil about it being exclusively US usage fails. Collect (talk) 13:11, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Collect: Given your previous involvement in this topic, it seems a bit disingenuous for you to wait for a tenuous consensus to form and then boldly move the page, asking for a revert, and then be pseudo-scandalized when someone reverts you. --MZMcBride (talk) 12:54, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Eh? 7 to 1 appears to be a noticeable ratio, and not a "tenuous" one. I would point out my "previous involvement" was three years ago (3 October 2011, in fact) -- "a long time between drinks"[1] as the adage goes. As for your ad hom about me being "pseudo-scandalized", I suggest you actually follow the precepts of collegial discussion here and elsewhere on Wikiworld. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:40, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're resorting to vote-counting. Try to instead focus on arguments and general agreement, which is the basis of consensus.
Your previous involvement doesn't need to be wrapped in scare quotes, it's quite evident from this talk page and the history of the subject-space page. As for alleged ad hominem attacks, nobody's attacking you, I'm simply calling you out on your feigned surprise expressed in this section after posting "Bold edit made. See if anyone reverts." Is it really so unexpected? And you know from previous discussions, in which you were an active participant, that there's disagreement here, which gives me even greater reason to boggle at both your recent action and reaction. --MZMcBride (talk) 11:48, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In case it was not clear - I did not start this latest discussion. This discussion was, as is easily seen, started in July. Not in October. Three months without any objections. Not a single objection- and I was not a participant in that discussion whatsoever. I had not been here for three years. Three years. A long time. Only one person (one) seemed to object to the changes. I came here because one of those who had previously objected to any change had changed their mind and so informed me at Jimbo's talk page on Wikipedia. Where such a change had occurred, I came back here - three years later than the prior discussion. So as far as being "active participant" the "long time between drinks" applies - I fear you are more interested in scoring points in this now than in understanding that the consensus is clear, the ArbCom for enWiki is now clearly looking at the gender issues, and if you wish to revert, do so - but I think it would be a tad unwise now. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:50, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[Insert:Consensus evolves over time. As Wikipedia matures and takes its responsibilities more seriously, it's not surprising that editors want to make things a bit less puerile - and a bit more inclusive. Carolmooredc (talk) 14:15, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How about we just leave body parts out of the equation. "Jerk" describes a sociological phenomena, as opposed to ass or dick etc. that is a metaphor for a sociological phenomena, as well as a word for a body part. Carolmooredc (talk) 19:45, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • The conclusion of pointing people toward a page of this nature is that they have gone overboard in some regard. Don't be "value" implies a level of heavy intensity already. On the opposite end of the spectrum, we could rename it to Please be positive trait if we're caring about feelings. Killiondude (talk) 23:17, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The complaints about misandry below this section are more immature than the essay ever was. And we don't need to invert the logic and tell users to "please exemplify a positive trait". This is already done in WP:CIVIL. Collect's count of 7-1 appears to include editors who were indifferent and came here simply to mention other forums where this might be discussed. In case you can't tell, I Oppose the "dick" to "jerk" change.
The word "dick" is not used to teach social courtesy... it is used for humor in much the same way as the "ignore all rules" wording. This helps to remind people that this is a community where the content of an argument takes precedence over other nitpicks. Connor Behan (talk) 19:38, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer "Don't be a cunt". 78.151.30.73 18:47, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Offensive to Men[edit]

If this were called "Don't be a cunt" it would be down in a flaming minute.

And, yes, the word "cunt" is often substituted for "dick" but men (and only men, I might add) are ever referred to as "dicks" and only women as called "cunts."

As a proud, gay man, I deeply offended your gender bias and complete disregard for male emotions. Shame on the hateful CUNT/DICK who made this article!

MensKeperRa (talk) 07:30, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Let's make Don't be a cunt as a redirect. :) Wnt (talk) 16:08, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As a man, let me assert the superiority of women, including when it comes to dickiness/jerkitude/whatever. --Nemo 16:33, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Don't be a cunt. 78.151.30.73 18:48, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]


>>only women as called "cunts."<< 1) proof-read before you press "save" 2) again, US-centric. if you come to the UK, you'll get called a cunt whether you possess one or not. 198.147.19.2 13:23, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard for me to put in words how important the phrase, "Don't be a dick" is. I am a male and a former "Dick" to the upmost degree. There were several individuals that told me this about myself. It wasn't until recently that I so fortunately gained the awareness to not just know that I was a dick(I already knew that) but to see how it affected others, the selfishness and ignorance in being one and the consequences that rightfully result in the continuation of being a dick. I urge anyone that comes across this valuable information to heed the advice that the editor so eloquently wrote. It is not worth it. I'm not going to begin to describe the heartache and regret amongst other unpleasant sufferings that one can endure for being jerk like me. Another extremely important lesson that I truly and deeply believe would help man/woman-kind as a whole and would remedy one being a jerk along with a multitude of other misunderstanding and problems people face is to, "Treat others as you would want to be treated". Yes we have all heard it and know what it means but do we apply/practice that in our daily lives? I'm not just saying this because it sounds nice or because it's the right thing to say. It's the right thing to do as a human being to be the best you and to spread love and kindness so others will see and hopefully want to follow. I learned the previously mentioned lessons or advice the very hard way. I hope you don't have to. A couple of extras:Be quiet and listen and don't, even if you don't really mean any harm, f@#$ with anyone. If you're treating others as you would want you should be okay but the nicest, quietest individual that you think couldn't hurt a flea, could return the unpleasant favor 10 fold and in ways that your mind had never conceived before. Based off actual events. Thank you intelligent designer and Carmen S. wherever you are in this crazy world. AteTuyenTAte6Tin (talk) 00:32, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh noes![edit]

Moving this was a good idea. Moving it to an even worse and more offensive, and equally gendered title was a bad idea.

I am tempted to suggest "Don't be a cad"...

Rich Farmbrough 02:37 29 October 2014 (GMT).

Do you think jerk is more offensive than dick? PiRSquared17 (talk) 02:41, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely! Rich Farmbrough 02:48 29 October 2014 (GMT).
Seems to be from "jerkwater town" old railroad slang for a place which has absolutely nothing except a water tower where you got water for the steam engine on the fly, or not even a water tower but getting water from a trough or stream - not making a stop. [2] Nothing remotely offensive in the oldest derivation. Collect (talk) 17:15, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Alternatively, or influenced by, verbal phrase jerk off "masturbate" http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=jerk
I would favour the latter derivation, or at the very least the influence, for otherwise "jerk" would be synonymous with "hick" and "rube".
However, as in a similar discussion over bad words at en:wp, we run the risk of falling afoul of the w:Etymological fallacy.
It is no good telling people that actually "jerk" is perfectly inoffensive, because of its (supposed) derivation, if they are already offended, and maybe have left. Even if they merely decide that the community is immature, and leave, damage is done.
Rich Farmbrough 01:35 8 November 2014 (GMT).
"Don't be a cad" is offensive to Jean-Pierre Charras and other cads who develop cad software like KiCad. --Damian Yerrick (talk) 13:22, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

New RfC[edit]

Please see Requests_for_comment/Jerks_vs_dicks. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 15:12, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus is recent (under two months) - and this seems an end-run around the normal process of determining consensus - discuss here first instead of starting an RfC first. I know one can say "consensus can change" but under two months is pushing it a tad. Collect (talk) 20:37, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As I've said at the RfC page, this is also about the bigger picture. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 21:59, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
While I welcome the invitation to discuss this again next year, the RfC is seeking a clearer picture of what the consensus is now. The only indication of a change occurring is the opinion of Tarc. As described in MZMcBride's comment, one person reviving the "dick" -> "jerk" proposal and six people saying "me too" is not a consensus. It is only chance that people like Nemo, Michaeldsuarez and myself were late in noticing the move. I don't know many editors who frequent this talk page, but it seems likely that people who never read it will still be interested in a decision that affects the overall tone of the project. Connor Behan (talk) 22:53, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the proposer at that RfC has said the question there is about general softening of language, and is not aimed at this essay. And the "six people" was eleven. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:10, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Poorly written RfC. I gave example of essay name/topic that would be removed immediately. Or maybe I should just write it and see?? :-) User:Carolmooredc 17:41, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proponent accused me of not "cooperating" with the RfC on which I had already opined <g>. Needs the proper award, I would suppose. Collect (talk) 22:31, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That RFC is riddled Google+ references (which is ironic, since Google loves censorship: a topic that the proponents of moving the page back to a more coarse title claim to be fighting against). They also allege that not randomly swearing for no reason is against an alleged "progression" that has occurred in modern society (read: nonsense). As it is, I can't really take the RFC seriously with arguments like that. Tharthan (talk) 20:25, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Two things:
--Michaeldsuarez (talk) 02:14, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am well aware that "+1" was used to denote agreement before Google+. However, I scarcely saw it used on the Wikmedia projects that I am on before Google+ became popular. Tharthan (talk) 21:25, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wheaton's law[edit]

Eh? We stopped obeying Wheaton's law? http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/wheatons-law

--Kim Bruning (talk) 02:01, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

+1 to renaming this page to Wheaton's law. --Nemo 09:29, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A minor meme not supported by actual sources? Pass. Tarc (talk) 13:42, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No sign of actual significant usage. All of 209 actual Google hits (some of which may be duplicates, in fact). — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Collect (talk) 15:01, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not fond of nerd idol Wil Wheaton. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 17:40, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The current name seems fine. Tharthan (talk) 20:17, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's cheeky and fun in forums, but not really part of the Zeitgeist (nor should it be outside of gaming types). It makes those who are unfamiliar with Wheaton's Law go look it up, when saying "Don't be a jerk" is quicker. If it were Godwin's Law, you'd have a point. 163.150.50.186 17:05, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Restore original page[edit]

Don't be a dick 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2013. In 2014 somebody started a field trial to prove that they are both a dick and a jerk, by moving the page to don't be a jerk. After this successful experiment move it back, please. –Be..anyone (talk) 20:17, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • What a silly claim - the move was made after substantial discussion over a period of time - and the iterations of jerkitude expressed in continuing this are plain. Collect (talk) 13:30, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Adding DICK image?[edit]

I suggest here that adding an image with "Don't be a Dick" in the image is a POINTY and improper addition to the page. Collect (talk) 18:23, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What's "DICK"? If you want to use jargon, you should probably link pages which explain your terms. Please be mindful of the newbies who may want to participate in the conversation. --Nemo 18:34, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. I believe that sets a snark record here. Collect (talk) 20:44, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest that there are 3…4 folks supporting the original English wikipe-tan trifecta image as it was for seven years, and 1…2 folks opposing it in a revisionist crusade to replace dicks by jerks started in 2014. –Be..anyone (talk) 14:55, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Meanwhile I decline to participate in your edit war to repeatedly add the "DICK" image -- it only shows how damn sophomoric and puerile the essay is in the first place, and always was, and always shall be. Collect (talk) 15:03, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'd support the idea of adding a picture of Dick Cheney instead...and obviously reverting the title back to "Dick", as it stands currently, the Wikipe-tan used "makes no sense" I'm not sure how people find jerk less offensive than dick?.... dick in this reference means an abrasive person, but jerk in the urban dictionary means "a cocky person" ....so would we be moving this to "Don't be a cock" next or "Don't be an abrasive, insensitive, selfish, ignorant and cocky person" to incorporate the definition of both dick and jerk?..--Stemoc 04:01, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So an image just saying "Don't" is better than "Don't be a dick"...? Don't what? This image is meaningless at present - either delete it, revert to the original, or create a new "jerk" version. But leaving it as it is... don't. Bazonka (talk) 13:48, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. A "jerk" version had ought to be made. Hold on, I'll go make one. Tharthan (talk) 20:40, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Bob's your uncle. Tharthan (talk) 20:50, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Page protection[edit]

I've just editprotected to a random wrong version. Meta's page protection dropdown menu lacks of an editwar entry. It's pretty ridiculous there's a silly editwar about an essay meaning "don't be silly". I'll leave this editprotection for a week before which I'll block users instead of pages. You have, then, 7 days to find create some consensus but don't forget civility is a must on meta too: I've just seen a personal attack in the section above, it's too late to block but I won't tolerate more incivility. --Vituzzu (talk) 16:26, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not surprised to see you appear here after Nemo_bis' credibility is questioned: You have a record of supporting Nemo_bis:
Frankly, I feel that you're here to protect Nemo_bis and find excuses to block Nemo's opponents; I don't believe that you're here to protect and aid in the construction of this page. I don't trust you to behave neutrally when your friend Nemo_bis is involved. I believe that this discussion would be best handled by a different admin. I make comments based on my experiences and what I know to be true; I don't make personal attacks. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 20:20, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If your conspirationist self-apology were right I had already blocked you for the clear-cut personal attack just above. Anyway, feel free to use such a deep self-indulgence, but on Italian projects I have a long history of quarrels with Nemo bis, you can pick up a random Italian long-term user (or even spend some minutes in googleing) and ask him how much "friend" me and him are.
Before you played the usual "z0mg everybody has a COI against me" trump do you plan to betray incivility and set up a discussion with @Be..anyone:, @Mr. Granger:, @Collect:, @Nemo bis:, @Tarc:, @Lightbreather: and @Connor Behan:? --Vituzzu (talk) 22:11, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
How can anyone have a discussion when you're using fear, intimidation, and threats? I've been speaking with the people you mentioned since December, and no amount of threats from sysops is going to turn division into consensus. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 23:11, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A rather simple solution would be a content fork. Generally a bad idea, but for an in essence humorous essay it should be okay. The traditional dicks can have their dick (plus picture and edit history) as it was for years, and the postmodern jerks can have their 2014 jerk optionally using the new 2015 softened picture if they like it. And the RfC could be closed as unnecessary. –Be..anyone (talk) 12:09, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Second. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 12:16, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
One of the most ridiculous ideas ever seen in Wikiland. The old essay was sophomoric and puerile, and a net negative to Wikiland. Time to grow up. When Wiki was a child ... Collect (talk) 13:02, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What's Wikiland? Again, I have no idea what you're talking about. --Nemo 15:12, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The wonderful land where genuine (fill in the blank)s rule. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:32, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Nemo Bis:, rethorical questions are a cul-de-sac by definition. --Vituzzu (talk) 16:39, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My preference would be to not have an image renowned for glorifying lolicon i.e. the sexualization of prepubescent girls. Tarc (talk) 17:30, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Some images in Category:Wikipe-tan are on the wrong side of odd, but the majority including all Trifecta variants is okay. –Be..anyone (talk) 18:03, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. It's now August 2016 and the page was still fully protected, so I've removed the page protection. I think we should try the wiki process again. (cc: Vituzzu) --MZMcBride (talk) 04:19, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Page protection at lolicon image version sends the wrong message[edit]

Because this site has been in existence for ten years, most participants have aged out of the phase of life in which a Wikipetan cartoon represents a member of their peer group. Promoting a sexualized, underage Wikipetan as a mascot for a 90% male site, which is now full of adult men, (who aren't teenagers anymore), is not where we want to be going. Protecting the page indefinitely with an image associated with lolicon, combined with the ongoing discussion about an appropriate name, calls into question this site's ongoing commitment to child protection and maintaining a wholesome, hospitable atmosphere. -- Djembayz (talk) 13:03, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

She isn't sexualised, as far as I can tell. More "cutesy" than anything else.
Furthermore, Wikipe-tan is Wikipedia's mascot, hence why she is being used here.
P.S. Let's drop the stick, now. Tharthan (talk) 21:50, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is not Wikipedia's mascot, in any way, shape or form. Maybe 7-8 years ago it was in an unofficial capacity, but nothing more than that. The project has evolved since then, away from the realms of basement-dwelling man-children who find images of underage anime girls attractive. Tarc (talk) 13:32, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your sexism is not welcome here, Tarc.—24.49.133.100 03:33, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Don't use words that you appear to not know the definition of. If you were part of that past, shameful era of the project, then there's nothinhg we can do for that. Tarc (talk) 16:25, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Tharthan. Wikipe-tan is moe, not a lolicon. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 14:10, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fairly neutral on Wikipe-tan, so if enough people think that the image should be removed, then I think that it is fair to remove it. But as it stands, I don't see any particular problem with the character. 1. She isn't sexualised like you claim 2. It is highly unlikely that she was designed for sick perverts, and 3. She isn't doing anything that is out of the ordinary for mascot characters to be doing.
And, to be quite frank, I think that you are assuming bad faith of the contributor who created the character, and of the community that found the character mascot-worthy in the first place. In addition, your comment that "The project has evolved since then, away from the realms of basement-dwelling man-children who find images of underage anime girls attractive." is a personal attack against proponents of Wikipe-tan, and is therefore poor etiquette; doubly so when one is attempting to make a point.
Honestly, though, there are some images that I have seen locally hosted on Wikipedia's server that are poor and/or silly uses of the mascot character, such as one where, if I recall correctly, she was wearing a bathing suit and standing on a beach or something of that sort. Those such images have no use on the project and I think that they should be removed. The continued presence of the character of "Wikipe-tan", in itself, however, does not seem to me to be particularly problematic, although if the community of Wikipedia today does not approve of her then perhaps she had ought to be replaced. Like I said, though, I don't personally see any particular problem with the character.
One thing that did bother me was that someone felt the need to re-add the image into the page very recently, even though it had been removed prior to that. Was there a consensus for/against that back then? If so, then we had ought to go by what that consensus determined. Tharthan (talk) 18:38, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fun facts, there's a founder version of this page. There's an image map in a template. The "jerk" variant is more Meh than MOE, the bare "don't" variant followed by IAR was funnier. –Be..anyone (talk) 08:07, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Too bad so sad nobody cares that you don't like the fact that "jerk" is used on this page now. Get over it and stop whining. Tharthan (talk) 10:54, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I can't believe the article has been left like this. Vituzzu, can you please drop the protection level? For what it's worth, my attempted edit would have been to remove the Trifecta image and if my edit were reverted, I would have left it at that. My reasons for wanting to remove it are different from Djembayz's, but that shouldn't matter. A secondary argument I made for the "dick" title at the RFC was the fact that the consensus for "jerk" was tenuous and rushed. By comparison, the consensus for or against Trifecta is non-existent and I can count all the diffs of the so-called "edit war" on both hands. This is an unofficial essay that once reflected the view of a specific editor and now reflects somewhat of a balance between how different editors interpret civility. It is the kind of thing that on principle should never be protected. The fact that the tiniest edit war managed to get it more tightly guarded than any BLP I have seen is beyond me. Connor Behan (talk) 20:16, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's because too many people are trying to change the page back to the old title. After a while, one must put one's foot down. Tharthan (talk) 20:52, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
On what grounds? It's impossible for the title to reflect consensus in 2100 if the article is forever locked because somebody in 2015 thought a good enough consensus had been reached then. And as I said, I'm willing to accept the current consensus even if I think poor logic was used in deriving it. The edits I have in mind have to do with the image and I will be making them even if I have to get admin powers taken away from people. Connor Behan (talk) 19:18, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not particularly concerned about the Wikipe-tan image, and if you wish to remove it and have the ability to do so, go ahead. I don't care much about it either way. Tharthan (talk) 16:22, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Isn’t consensus generally determined through discussion? Unless the Talk page is locked, that’s still possible. —67.14.236.50 05:45, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

“Don’t” in image[edit]

The current image is confusing. It’s not clear whether the “Don’t” on a line by itself refers to the page title, the following line “Ignore all rules,” or what. Please either remove it or replace with a version that uses more than a single word, whether “Don’t be a jerk” or “Don’t be a dick.” —67.14.236.50 05:57, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

HOLD ON. That already happened. I made such an edit, but an administrator had something go through that had it changed to the current image that you see now.

Apparently, the edit that changed it to just say "Don't" was made by a user that doesn't speak English as a native language, and yet that user is firmly insisting to keep the "Don't" version, and has gotten administrator support for that.

You cannot do anything unless you contact the administrator and the user that is causing the current image to override any edits made to it.

Looking at the edit history, Sargoth, the user that is firmly insisting on having the image just say "Don't", has reverted not just my edits to have the image say "Don't be a jerk", but also the edits of the user "Jason Quinn", who also made the image say "Don't be a jerk". Tharthan (talk) 15:18, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Could you upload it as a new file, maybe? Though I can’t see any rationale for the current “softend” version… —67.14.236.50 19:36, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In the meantime, I’ve posted a request to Sargoth’s Talk on Commons, and another to c:COM:ANB. Whichever way it goes, anything would be an improvement over using the “Don’t” version. —67.14.236.50 20:13, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just replace the image by c:File:Wikipe-tan trifecta sign.png... Thibaut120094 (talk) 21:00, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That says “dick” instead of “jerk,” but I’m not bothered by that. I think it’d be preferable for the image to match the (current) title, but again, anything’s an improvement. —67.14.236.50 22:17, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Then create a new file. Thibaut120094 (talk) 22:53, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sargoth said that he uploaded the image for a Talk page, and had apparently never intended for it to be used on Meta or anywhere outside of talkspace. So that makes a lot more sense now. In light of this, please remove it from the page as soon as possible. I am ambivalent as to whether it’s replaced with the original Trifecta image, but the one that’s here doesn’t belong here and apparently never has. —67.14.236.50 23:55, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And now I’ve been blocked (even from editing my own Talk page) on Commons for daring to question the protection… what the hell? Anyway, @Sargoth, if you read this: Like I said here, that makes a lot more sense, if you never intended for it to be used unmodified. The name (and description) probably caused confusion, though—it’s not softer language, it’s blank. That name would be why people have tried to “fix” it. —67.14.236.50 14:51, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry, no one will listen. This is the way the the Wikimedia projects are going these days; administrators act like earls over the pages that they are affiliated with. If the image could be restored to the "don't be a jerk image" that is still there in the page history, there would be no problems. Tharthan (talk) 19:02, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Given consensus in earlier discussions seems to be that the image is not an essential part of the article and the problem in this thread of the image no longer making sense, I've removed the image for now. If there is consensus to add it back once a new version of the image is created then please submit another edit request (or request the protection level is dropped - it was added in March for edit warring on this topic so I'd prefer to wait for an established consensus now that the topic has come up again before dropping it myself). Thehelpfulone 23:30, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Again, I wouldn’t be opposed to a sensible version of the image being used, if anyone ever uploads one anew. But I’m happy with it either way. —67.14.236.50 04:10, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Removing instead of e*** w****** is a good solution. Thanks Thehelpfulone. Now you all can jerk :-) --Sargoth (talk) 07:32, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Thehelpfulone for being the exception to the rule. Administrators like yourself are the kind we need on Wikimedia projects these days. Thank you. Tharthan (talk) 13:12, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ta-daaaa ... here you are. Have fun. --Sargoth (talk) 08:21, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I actually like that new one that you made, Sargoth. Maybe we could get that used on this page in the future. Tharthan (talk) 13:44, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
“Be friendly.” I think I actually prefer it! It’s positive rather than negative; encourages good behavior rather than discouraging bad. —67.14.236.50 15:33, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Useful extlink[edit]

Please add to ==External links== section:

Unbelievable[edit]

This sudden title change seems to have been part of an organized effort. What's next, we're going to replace all US swearwords with asterisks? "Don't be a dick" is a common saying. "Don't be a jerk" has an entirely different meaning. Since when can a handful of persistent users alter a consensus that has lasted for over a decade? It needs to be relisted or discussed again. Get a few more users involved than ~5. Prinsgezinde (talk) 17:20, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you. We had an RfC, there was no consensus, and that should have resulted in the title going back to the long term consensus version of "Don't be a dick". Which as you say, is milder and more commonly used than the jerk version. But whatever, there's probably not much that can be done about it now. Amakuru (talk) 17:35, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My word! Are you people still whinging about this? Give it up already. Stop flogging a dead horse. Tharthan (talk) 14:35, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure the horse is dead? It must be possible to revert a decision. It's a wiki after all. I also thought the title was better without any jerking. Boivie (talk) 17:59, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Tharthan: It sounds like the OP was completely unaware of any discussion about the change until October 14. So it’s unfair to characterize the reaction as “still whinging about [it]” and “flogging a dead horse,” especially with so few participants. —67.14.236.50 00:24, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Prinsgezinde: I agree, and I would participate in such a discussion. —67.14.236.50 00:24, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What's unbelievable is that some people don't realise that English is spoken not just by Americans, but is the native language (with subtle variations :) for many others around the world. Whilst I'm not particularly bothered by the word 'dick' in this context, I also don't think is necessary when another word is just as good. Some people will find 'dick' offensive (and not just on gender terms). In British English (I can't speak for US use) using 'dick' in this context is just a shortened version of 'dickhead', and that would be (a bit) more offensive. Effectively "Don't be a Dick" translates in non-US English to some as "Don't be a Dickhead". 'Jerk' is a more US-sounding term, but most get the gist (and unlike a poster way above, it's never crossed my mind to confuse it with 'jerking off'). If I said "Don't be a prat" or "Don't be a Twat" would the US English speakers get the alternate nuances ? Ideally "Don't be a Dolt" may be better still ! The Yeti (talk) 22:12, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t think “dolt” would work; this essay addresses social conduct, not intelligence. I think a better solution would be to move the title away from insults or accusations altogether: Be respectful. This seems to be the central message behind this page. —67.14.236.50 01:53, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And I’ve requested such a move (or done my best to). Please discuss at PPM#Don't be a jerk to Be respectful. Thanks. —67.14.236.50 01:25, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Move request[edit]

In case nobody saw it, there is a request to rename this page to "Be respectful" on WM:PPM. I did not propose it, but I'm surprised nobody has commented there considering all the previous title controversy. PiRSquared17 (talk) 04:05, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Be respectful" is a nice title that relevant for the content of this page. It however still misses the connection to Wheaton's Law, that I suppose was a purpose of this page originally. Boivie (talk) 09:51, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would support renaming the page to Wheaton's Law, or at least including an explanation of the term, if the original language were to be restored. If not, I say we drop the connection. —67.14.236.50 15:44, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It’s been a week and a half with no objections to the move. How long do Metans (or whatever the Meta demonym is) generally have to wait before asking an admin to do it? —67.14.236.50 04:49, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

According to the top of WM:PPM, "These should be listed for seven days and implemented if there is no opposition." It could be implemented per that guideline, but I suspect that people are going to notice the title change after the page is moved and request to move it back. Does Boivie explicitly oppose this proposal? PiRSquared17 (talk) 05:34, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Even if it’s a negative reaction, that’s generating discussion, and I can only see that as a Good Thing. If there’s a better way to get people to discuss alternative names, I’d be happy to know it. —67.14.236.50 00:50, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We could try notifying people who commented above. @Good afternoon, Tarc, Lightbreather, Carolmooredc, Collect, Nemo bis, and Jayen466: @Ajraddatz, MZMcBride, Tharthan, Michaeldsuarez, Kim Bruning, and Be..anyone: care to comment on WM:PPM? PiRSquared17 (talk) 03:12, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's not about pinging, interested people are following (I saw this in watchlist). There is no interest in that proposal. By contrast, there is consensus above for another title. Nemo 07:12, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't oppose anything. I'm just whining about that the original humorous (vulgar) version of this page is no longer here. Transforming it to a "Be respectful"-page would make it even more boring and less interesting. Boivie (talk) 09:46, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Boivie: Well that's what happens when one pushes for unneeded vulgarity. Not everybody likes vulgar humour, and one ought to understand that. So one went from vulgarity to something with the same meaning that was not vulgar. But then people had to push it and complain for ages, so now it is being pushed to something completely different. Tharthan (talk) 20:09, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The “vulgar” humor was kind of the point, no? It’s always been a tongue-in-cheek essay that insulted the people that it’s about, and arguing over the insult is kind of missing the point. I’m just asking if we should change the point, if the essay should be made less jokey and more rules-y. —67.14.236.50 21:26, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If the essay is moved to "Be respectful", then yes. Tharthan (talk) 16:13, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose yet another name change. Getting a perfect balance of humor and seriousness that will please everyone is an exercise in futility. Connor Behan (talk) 18:54, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I personally agree with Connor Behan. The current title Don't be a jerk is a perfect blend of humor and seriousness. Readers will not feel humiliated by this title. After all, this is an essay, not a policy. --Good afternoon (talk) 03:48, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you're calling any word choice perfect, then we don't agree. I'm claiming that a debate for one over the other is like a war over template colors. Connor Behan (talk) 20:21, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, perhaps it isn't perfect, but this word choice is already good enough and no further change is necessary. --Good afternoon (talk) 11:16, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Connor Behan and Good afternoon: Fair point. It seems like you’ve here answered my questions below. So, thanks. I disagree, though, that the debate is pointless, assuming we want reading this essay to have some kind of result. —67.14.236.50 23:30, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I just closed this request. Matiia (talk) 05:11, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! —67.14.236.50 17:19, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The proposed Be respectful rename was terrible, as respect has nothing to do with the issue. Respect is something that people earn. Being a jerk/dick i snot a matter of failing to show someone the respect they've earned, but is entirely about the personal behavior of the other party, what is otherwise called being an asshole/arsehole. It's entirely possible (even pretty common) to be both respectful and an insufferable douchebag at the time time.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  20:08, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is wide consensus for restoring the original meaning of the page. Now that the page has been unprotected, I encourage any user believing in reason and rationality to act accordingly. Nemo 17:52, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus? Where?—Teles «Talk to me ˱C L @ S˲» 18:34, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why “Don’t”?[edit]

So can anyone give any kind of persuasive argument for having a page like this, with a title and content like “Don’t stuff beans up your nose,” rather than having it be about what to do? I mean, it’s not identified as a humor page, or else an “inappropriate” and insulting title would absolutely be appropriate. Unless I missed it, no one has ever defended the “Don’t be a [personal attack]” title with any sort of reasoning, other than that it’s sort of a set phrase in English (i.e. Wheaton’s law). —67.14.236.50 06:29, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vulgar humour may be humour, but humour is not necessarily vulgar humour. Be a little more open minded, would you? Tharthan (talk) 02:31, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Tharthan: Not sure what this has to do with my question… I’m asking why we haven’t made the page take itself more seriously. Are you saying this is meant to be a humor page? Then someone should probably add {{Humor}} and/or Category:Humor. —67.14.236.50 15:44, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think that it is meant to be somewhere in between humour and seriousness, to put it frankly. Tharthan (talk) 17:15, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That seems about right. But what I was asking is, why do we need humor here? It seems to detract from the actual sound advice here, even contradict it—“Don’t be a jerk by calling people jerks, ya jerks” (or substitute whatever insult you prefer; it doesn’t help). Or if it was just supposed to be silly, there would have been no reason for anyone to ever fight over the wording, and that clearly wasn’t the case. —67.14.236.50 21:48, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a humor page, it is an essay on how one should interact with others in this project. Tarc (talk) 15:35, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DBAD[edit]

So can someone explain to me why the title has "jerk" now and not "dick"? Having read this entire talk page, I haven't really received a fitting explanation other than "that's the way it is now, now shut up and stop beating the dead horse".--WaltCip (talk) 17:25, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No real reason; should be reverted, especially as there wasn't consensus. Nemo 18:39, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's the way it is now, now be quiet and stop beating the dead horse. Tharthan (talk) 19:41, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No consensus anywhere. I also think, we need to preserve the original for historical context. Meta isn't a content project, it sort of like a back-project with archival information. "Don't be a dick" while you may agree or disagree with, was part of Wikipedia at some point. We should preserve it for historical accuracy at least. I will move it, if there isn't any logical reason why historical information has to be revised. Theo10011 (talk) 02:36, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there was a discussion above with a very logical reason and some supporters of the move and took a while for any complaint. Meta is definitely not a project for archival information. Where did you read that?—Teles «Talk to me ˱C L @ S˲» 05:37, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Teles. Errr...... For start, how about Meta:Historical, Logo_history, Wikimedia history the archives category. We have a dedicated historical template which is being used in a few thousand pages. You can also read Meta origins. It was designed in 2001 to move all the meta-pages from en.wp to a central location. The pages on en.wp changes or got completely moved, but most were intended to still be preserved here. This is not to mention all the chapter formation, reports from 10 years ago, meetings, board meetings, IRC chat logs, even fundraising pages from 8-9 years ago - nothing is deleted if it concerns wikimedia or if it was relevant at any point. I hope that clarifies. Thanks. Theo10011 (talk) 14:47, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Like every wiki, Meta has pages that are kept to preserve history. I can link you to many pages on my home-wiki that are kept for historical purpose, and there is a template, and there is a category. In case you don't want to take my home-wiki as an example, you can check the interwiki links on that template and you will see that it exists on several ones. However, none of that allow me to say that my home-wiki or any other wiki is a place for storing archival information only. We also have this template here on Meta, which for some reason is not used on this page here. The way you mention it makes some believe that we can't change the pages and they should remain in an old version. Really, where did you read that? Kind regards.—Teles «Talk to me ˱C L @ S˲» 15:30, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Teles, In the template itself actually, where it says they might be "obsolete". Your wiki, as you mention, is a content project - they all are. They have policy pages but the primary usage is to generate and store some type of content. Meta has no content by that definition, so it just stores policy and meta-stuff, hence the archive analogy. I can argue almost everything here is historical - it has happened before. Reports, budgets, campaigns, old essays, WMF history, logs, meetings, pages like this. Starting from 2001, some are still relevant on other wikis and policy-wise, which can be updated and maintained, but a large majority is outdated and obsolete (as it says in the template itself) - this doesn't mean they aren't relevant for historical context, so they are still preserved instead of being deleted or updated, and new discussions usually go on their talk pages. I am not sure if I am doing a good job at providing examples. Nemo might be able to offer better examples if he is interested, he is more knowledgeable about old pages than me. Thanks. Theo10011 (talk) 15:51, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see this project as a place for merely archiving things that shouldn't be changed and there is nothing like that on its description. In fact, Meta is a place where we can see many working places, like Stewards' pages for renaming, blocking, locking, deleting, changinf permissions, where user groups and chapters place their descriptions and activities, where grants are requested and discussed, where global policies are held and constantly translated to many languages, where users request comments on a certain subject... comparative information of many projects, many other essays on diffent topics... For that, I don't see Meta as a place where its pages are archives only, but they can always be changed in case of need.
Of course we have pages that shouldn't be changed and are archives. Any project (focused on content or not) has archives, like old discussions, votes, logs and so on. Meta is no different. Only what is an archive should not be changed. There is no indication that this page was created here to remain as it was created, as an archive. I would appreciatte if you could point me to any indication that could confirm your affirmation.—Teles «Talk to me ˱C L @ S˲» 03:36, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is getting conflated. Let me go one by one. You are comparing meta to content projects, there is no content generated here - no articles, words, images. The policy and archives on other wikis are there to govern project rules. Meta however is like a central repository to import and cross-pollinate policies universally. Next, you mention Meta isn't entirely about archiving, I agree. The requests and cross-wiki work here is a big facet of usage. But let me ask, do we delete anything here? even old steward requests from 7 years ago? It's all kept - that was why I kept calling it an archives. There is little or no deletion. We also don't edit those archived pages or closed requests or even RfCs, right? you mention yourself. They are preserved for record, was the central point I was trying to make. A mark in time that this happened then, here is the diff, here is the action - stored here indefinitely.
The thing you are conflating is that I am saying we can't updated this page or policy page - I am not saying that. There are 2 points, one is that if this is current established policy it can be updated if it is being used. What I am saying is, as part of our history, there should be another page at DBAD because few years ago that was an influential essay and policy - it was part of history. Even for the purpose of historical essays it is highly relevant to have the original, even if we call it obsolete and put the main one more prominently - the original DBAD was a part of our history. We can't deny it didn't exist. It has the right to be here as much as anything Sanger said in 2001 like this - there are a ton of pages like this. Old, possibly irrelevant what a few people discussed or said 10-15 years ago. They are preserved here for record, we never intend to delete them. DBAD should fit in with those - this is my only point. Second argument to make is the essay argument. Essays are usually a user's opinions, they are by definition not policy, as it says in the template itself. It is usually not a good idea to rename or make big changes without asking the person who wrote it first. It was their one-sided effort. Consider if you wrote an influential essay and 10 years later someone, renamed it. It should require the original users approval? The name has been challenged since 2005 if you read the history but the original does have some importance since this isn't english wikipedia where this was imported from. This wasn't even created here. I hope this makes my point. Thanks. Theo10011 (talk) 05:35, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That is kept undeleted just as any page on "Wikipedia" namespace. Your first paragraph just described what we do to pages on "Wikipedia" namespace. Moving these pages is just rare to an evolved wiki, but we can do it anytime if we have reasons. In case that it is not an essay and kept only for historical purposes, {{Historical header}} should be added to the article and many users can be sure they can ignore this page that is usually seen as offensive, especially those that are not native English speakers and learn that the word "dick" is offensive and has no place on any essay that intends to deal with uncivility for its usage on any discussion would actually be uncivil.—Teles «Talk to me ˱C L @ S˲» 18:54, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Given that en.wikipedia has also adopted the "jerk" wording, the point would seem to be moot. The principal rationale for the change (whether individuals all agree with it or not) is that the "dick" wording tended to make matters worse, because it's offensive to many people on its face, seems particularly directed at one gender (the same reason en:WP:DIVA was renamed, though the present name isn't much better), and is much more subjective, coming across as uncivil name-calling, rather than a description of problematic behavior, than the "jerk" version. I don't agree on the latter point; "Don't act like a jerk" would be the version to use if that were the actual concern (and is probably is a valid one). The "is of identity" is a powerful thing and often abused. If someone is a jerk/dick, that's just the way they are; all hope is lost, and they should just quit the project. If someone is acting like one, this is a problem to work on and solve. Big difference.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  20:14, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That is side-stepping my main point. I concede that if this is a current policy page, it can be renamed or its name voted on (again). Those discussions about legitimacy of "dick", its implication, sexism, uncivil nature, are all discussions worth having. My entire point was, for historical accuracy, as a matter of fact, meta should have a copy of DBAD - In 2005, an editor wrote an influential essay titled "don't be a dick" as a corollary to ignore all rules. Here is a link to the original. - that is a matter of fact. Its name was changed and voted on several times. The current name has support and opposition within the community - all this again is a matter of fact that no one can debate, if you just look through the history. We can add the name was re-appropriated later and changed to another with DBAJ as it is on en.wp. We can have both copies here at the same time. I am only trying to preserve historical accuracy, merely renaming it won't make it disappear and make it like this never existed. If older wikipedians make reference to it, they don't need to be corrected since their recollection is accurate for their time. That is my entire point in suggesting we keep both. This is separate from whatever en.wp does, Meta has historical pages of value, we can keep both the original and the current here for reference. It would appease both sides. Regards. Theo10011 (talk) 10:53, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I could not believe my eyes when I saw this had been bowdlerized and deflated wirh this limp, tin-earred title. We are a writing project. This is a language crime. This makes me sad.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:52, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh quit your moaning. The original title was simply not appropriate for the kind of "project" that we are. Tharthan (talk) 00:27, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Simply not appropriate". Incisive point.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:29, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, ever since the renaming here and at en.WP, I have yet to see a single dispute break out with someone claiming to have been personally attacked or "UNCIVILed" after a citation to JERK page was made about their [alleged] behavior; reference to the page at all has dropped markedly. This version may be tin-eared, but it's way less of a drama factory. Same goes for what used to be w:en:WP:DIVA. If people cite either of these pages as advice, they generally do so for defensible and on-point reasons, not because it's a handy insult they think they can get away with, a little "boys will be boys" basement to fight in while the adults look the other way. We also haven't see any further antics like creation of new redirects like WP:CUNT to such pages. So, I call this an overall improvement. The DICK name was an artifact of WP's wild-and-wooly early adopter days of being mostly a sausage-party of Slashdot nerds, the majority of whom were 20s to early 40s, male, white, libertarian-ish, and in California – entirely used to calling each other dicks to get a point across. WP is in a different phase of the organizational lifecycle since then, and with a much more diverse editorial base (though that one demographic is probably still the largest single glob).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  21:20, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New section of the article[edit]

I've recently updated this page in order to make it less of a tool in order to justify blatant bullying by large groups of editors. Peer pressure and resulting behaviour is a well-known phenomenon in all spheres, and it does not help the Wiki projects to encourage it in any way, or even to blame the victims. Hence, I've included a section to be read by those who may be a victim of bullying on either of the Wiki projects, so that they don't mistakenly believe themselves to be the guilty one. This page has been removed by the very same user who blocked my talk page access, with the comment "Carefully outmaneuvering?". This is not to say that this comment had anything to do with this conflict, and in the spirit of AGF I assume that it was not an instance of so-called "wikihounding", a behaviour ABSOLUTELY inadequate for an administrator. However, it remains away from the article, and hence, I request the building of consensus to reinclude the section. --Mathmensch (talk) 19:35, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I saw, the removal was appropriate. --Nemo 12:27, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative de translation[edit]

There is an alternative translation to German: de:Benutzer:Stefan64/Sei kein Idiot. The wording "Idiot" is as litte less derogatory/pejorative than "Arsch". --Himbeerbläuling (talk) 17:34, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Don%27t_be_a_jerk&oldid=25929234"