Talk:Don't be a dick/Archives/2005

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Warning! Please do not post any new comments on this page. This is a discussion archive first created in 2005, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date. See current discussion or the archives index.

Emerson quote from politics

In dealing with the State, we ought to remember that its institutions are not aboriginal, though they existed before we were born: that they are not superior to the citizen: that every one of them was once the act of a single man: every law and usage was a man`s expedient to meet a particular case; that they all are imitable, all alterable; we may make as good; we may make better. Society is an illusion to the young citizen. It lies before him in rigid repose, with certain names, men, and institutions, rooted like oak - trees to the centre, round which all arrange themselves the best they can. But the old statesman knows that society is fluid; there are no such roots and centres; but any particle may suddenly become the centre of the movement, and compel the system to gyrate round it, as every man of strong will, like Pisistratus, or Cromwell, does for a time, and every man of truth, like Plato, or Paul, does forever. But politics rest on necessary foundations, and cannot be treated with levity. Republics abound in young civilians, who believe that the laws make the city, that grave modifications of the policy and modes of living, and employments of the population, that commerce, education, and religion, may be voted in or out; and that any measure, though it were absurd, may be imposed on a people, if only you can get sufficient voices to make it a law. But the wise know that foolish legislation is a rope of sand, which perishes in the twisting; that the State must follow, and not lead the character and progress of the citizen; the strongest usurper is quickly got rid of; and they only who built on Ideas, build for eternity; and that the form of government which prevails, is the expression of what cultivation exists in the population which permits it. The law is only a memorandum.

66.30.79.242 18:33, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Why is this page even here?

This page is completely and totally worthless as a guideline for behavior, as it doesn't explain the term and is unnecessarily offensive. I highly suggest removing it. 172.138.199.67 00:42, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Um... "don't be a dick?"

...

Was that some kind of test? Was the answer "don't be a dick"? If so, it's a weird sense of humor, but okay. Any humor on Wiki is good by me, I guess.

This is rediculous, this is a very great policy. --4.225.240.67 17:59, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

4.225.240.67 was me, I got logged out. --Phroziac (talk) 18:00, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Let's Just Change the Title

The title isn't very classy. We need to promote a sort of dignity of Wikipedia. Let's just make the title something like, "Don't Cause Problems."

Dignity? Feh. On the contrary, I think a little humor is useful, especially when you're trying to convince people to not be dicks. If the profanity is really a problem, we can just change it to "don't be a jerk" or something similar. 68.226.239.73
How about calling it "Don't Bowdlerise Meta"? - David Gerard 14:53, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
 :-)
Certainly, I think we should keep this here.
James F. (talk) 15:00, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
Renaming it to "don't be a jerk" would be better. It's the gratuitousness of it that I find most offensive. I'm not the only person who has is offended by it, either. I suggest that to achieve neutrality the wishes of those who find it offensive should be respected. Discouraging editors without cause is harmful to wikipedia. It is not necessary to use the specific term that has been used. None of the arguments provided contradict this. I've interspersed some responses as little debate was had during VfD that I can see.

They seem to be

  • It's a meme (eh? what's that got do with anything)
  • It's an explanation of a meme.
  • Wikipedia should not develop more jargon than absolutely necessary. People should use clear English, not empty cliches.
  • It's clearly stated, and it's not nonsense
  • actually it's an empty, somewhat subjective assertion, though it may be well understood at present. It's certainly poor use of language
  • "It's a principle to live by", "it's a strong principle", etc
  • Hardly. It's far too ambiguous. It's like saying "be good". It could mean anything.
  • Removal of this page is a deletionist crusade.
  • The page is worthless. One doesn't have to subscribe to supposed "deletionism" to think that.
  • This is a policy
  • You wish. No it isn't. Even if it were, it should be abolished.
  • "censoring adds limits and wikipedia is meant to be limitless"
  • Nonsense. Of course wikipedia is meant to be limited. It's limited to the set of points of views that people can be shown to hold, and, in the case of meta, to describing the consequences of this limitation.

What next? "Don't write worthless crap?" That'd be somewhat self referential, in my opinion.

The previous results were (correct me if I'm mistaken)

Keep:cesarb, Phroziac/4.225.240.67, Trilobite, Kelly Martin, Redwolf24, Antandrus, David Gerard, Theresa knott, Snowspinner, Elian, Ilγαηερ, Gamaliel, Dan100
Rename: TheoClarke, MrJones, Asbestos
Delete: 84.237.120.114, MrJones, Aphaia, 172.138.199.67

This is a tiny, tiny fraction of wikipedia. When can the voting be re-opened? I suspect some would like it never to be re-opened, but that hardly makes sense does it? MrJones 11:44, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Hm. I've re-read it. It's saying "pay attention to the social constraints imposed by the apparent majority". That's essentially a conservative doctrine, and nothing to do with neutrality, quite the opposite. Social constraints usually enforce bias. MrJones 11:51, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Delete?

This page was listed at Meta:Requests for deletion but there was no consensus for deletion as the following discussion shows.

Nonsense that originated in Wikipedia and was for some reason moved to Meta instead of being deleted. This is useless as a guideline, and "dick" is certainly not a word to use in guidelines. - 84.237.120.114 16:48, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Strong Keep. It is a running meme on en:, almost always used via the WP:DICK redirect. This page is an important explanation of the meaning of the meme there (and why it shouldn't be called in vain), and the redirect itself survived a RFD ([1]). --cesarb 22:22, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's blunt and to the point (thank god), so it doesn't have to be polite. And as stated, it's used frequently enough on wikipedia. 137.186.221.75 22:29, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Umm, keep. This is not "nonsense", this is the core social policy guiding (at the very least) the English Wikipedia. James F. (talk) 01:14, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. This is surely a core principle for anyone wishing to conduct themselves properly on the wiki. See for example en:Wikipedia:Policy trifecta. Trilobite 01:27, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, please - this is a principle to live by! --BDAbramson 15:37, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's incredibly useful for those rare situations where people have managed to avoid breaking rules or violating policies but nevertheless have acted like... well... dicks. /Karmosin 16:13, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: It is okay English Wikipedia accepts it their policy , but I don't know any other Wikimedia project which include it to their policies. English Wikipedia can contain it as their own policy on their project under their own Wikipedia namespace, and don't need to keep it on meta. Do I miss some points? --Aphaia | Translate Election | ++ 02:33, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I think it's generally applicable to all of the community, including meta and all the other wikis. Wouldn't you agree? Trilobite 03:11, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Currently no. As far as meta, I don't think there has been no consensus or argument if we accept it as our policy. If I recall correctly, an English editor submitted this page one day to escape VFD and came to #wikimedia to hear meta regulars' opinions. We agreed dick was not a decent term and paid no further attention. So I was surprised when I found it was accepted as a policy. Anyway you can't apply any policy to each community without their consent and I bet the majority of Wikimedians don't know this document.
I am active on English Wikquote but we don't include this document into our list of policies and guideline. As far as I know, it is only accepted on English Wikipedia currently.
And I should add it is not a good policy even its content is acceptable. For non English speaking people, dick is unfamiliar term. And I should confess even now I don't understand the term "dick" totally, some friends tried to explain and I consulted my disctionary. Other parts too, shortly it is written for foreing readers in a too blunt manner to understand. Too colloquail. So I don't oppose English Wikipedia keep it as their policy but oppose if they claim it should be applied to other projects because it is on meta. If you claim it can be applicatable, you need to rewrite it in more plain style for non English speaking people understanding in my humble opinion. No one can show his approval or dissent to the document he can't grasp its meaning, specially someone claims it should be a principal. --Aphaia | Translate Election | ++ 03:48, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I don't think anyone claims that it's a formal policy, like the rules for blocking or deletion or whatever, it is just a useful guideline for social interaction in a wiki environment, from which many other guidelines, and probably the reasoning behind a lot of policies, naturally follow. I don't know anything about you Aphaia and I haven't come across you much so I wouldn't like to label you unfairly, but it does seem that whenever I stop by meta and check this page there is some alarming deletionist crusade going on. First you tried to delete the test wikis that had been agreed on the mailing list and were not doing anyone any harm, and now you're trying to get rid of this page that many people think sums up the rules and guidelines needed for a harmonious community. This surely falls under parts one and two of meta's remit. Trilobite 13:46, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
You made two false statements toward me Trilobite, 1) I commented but haven't voted on this candidate, even abstain. The guy he listed it here is not me, but the other person. So I recommend you to withdraw your statement and make an apology. 2) on test wikis; it was proposed on Wikipedia-l mailinglist surely, but you omited (intentionally or unintentionally) that it wasn't annonced on meta itself. And not every meta editors are Wikipedians - like GeraldM on Wiktionary, or me on Wikiquote, some of us are working on other projects mainly. And it isn't what "harms no one"; at least two editors complained to its originally proposed figure - test wiki with 100 or 150 articles on main namespace, and for the editors who are working on meta main namespace, it is very annoying, and moreover meta deletion policy suggests "encyclopedic articles" as deletion candidates, and we deleted some of "Wikipedia(s) on meta" without any proposal or community concensus, it was fair to list them on RfD at that time, specially no4.225.240.67 proposal of changing deletion policy was made on meta (wikipedia-l isn't the proper place to discuss meta policy in my opinion).--Aphaia | Translate Election | ++ 15:27, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I quite agree with you about the problem of things being agreed on the mailing list and never announced on meta. If it was up to me the mailing lists would not exist at all and all discussion would take place on the wikis. The mailing lists exist to put up a barrier to prevent the wider community from commenting on proposals, so that they are handed down fully-formed from those who are subscribed to the lists. As for this page, I have no great love for it and I wasn't involved in writing it or anything, but I have seen it referenced a lot and it is a little worrying to check meta and see all these attempts at deletion of perfectly valid material. This page is valid both in the context of "Discussion and formulation of the Wikimedia projects, and in particular policy discussion," and "A forum for personal essays about the Wikimedia projects (not necessarily NPOV)." You may not have specifically voted to delete it (I'm sorry if I gave the impression that you did) but it's clear you don't see the relevance and would like it gone. You said that it was specific to en and should be moved to en's Wikipedia namespace, but this is where it used to be and it got moved to meta after a VfD discussion. I don't want meta to be a dumping ground for rubbish, but it's no good shunting pages back and forth between different wikis. I just don't see that this is doing any harm by existing on meta. Trilobite 16:14, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I'm afraid Meta is becoming a "dumping ground for rubbish". Contributors obviously confuse it with BJAODN. - 84.237.120.114 12:34, 28 Jun 2005 (UTC)
You do come across as having a tendency to use meta VFD as a blunt instrument, I'm afraid - David Gerard 14:52, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Comment. Although I wholeheartedly subscribe to its ethos, I do find the name of this guideline mildly inappropriate for English Wikipedia and strongly so for anywhere else. I cannot imagine that anyone intends to tell another editor to avoid being a penis and very few will read it that way, but using slang derived from taboos seems unwise anywhere that English is not the first language of the participants.—TheoClarke 19:22, 28 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comment And that is why I want English Wikipedia to keep it on its own site, not embarrassing the grobal community. --Aphaia | Translate Election | ++ 05:14, 29 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete Now I change my position because now it is clear to me this article stimulate someone's nasty imagination, that is, Be a Dick. I am really really really annoyed with those nasty English slang. So I say no meta content should use such nasty dirty obscene word(s) not to annoy other editors. --Aphaia | Translate Election | ++ 20:22, 30 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Move to Don't be unpleasant and edit accordingly.—TheoClarke 22:39, 4 Jul 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, a worthy and very useful page. It might be blunt but it's also says what needs to be said. Dan100 17:56, 5 Jul 2005 (UTC)
  1. Extreme lesbian keep! This is rediculous, the page is blunt and to the point. This is the only rule we ever need on wikipedia. It's in the policy trifecta, how can you remove it? :( --Phroziac (talk) 18:02, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Absolute keep. The bluntness of the language reinforces the rule. "Don't be unpleasant" is too wishy-washy. I'd also settle for moving it back to en:. Deleting it would unbalance the policy trifecta, which would be bad. Kelly Martin 18:08, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
Strong Keep. Do not bowdlerize meta. This page is one of the most linked to meta pages at wikipedia. I beg you all to not censor, as censoring adds a limit, and wikipedia is supposed to be limitless. en:User:Redwolf24 13:27, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, duh! en:User:Kim Bruning / 80.126.238.189 14:36, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
    Comment: Aphaia makes a good point, saying that meta has a different set of editors than en. Move the original content back to en, and have meta editors formulate an international alternate,: have both versions link to each other. Will that do? en:User:Kim Bruning / 80.126.238.189 14:59, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep; it's an important and pithy guideline that ought to be required reading for all editors, and it's well worth any ten thousand words of whining and whinging on talk pages and conflict-resolution zones, here, there or on any wiki. Antandrus 14:42, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, under its present title. It was moved from en: because it's a much more meta-sort of document. Also, it's not policy - it's a description of how communities, particularly Internet ones, actually work. - David Gerard 14:47, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep agree with Antandrus and David Theresa knott 14:52, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Snowspinner 14:56, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep essential meme. --Elian 14:58, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. definately. SheeshIlγαηερ (Tαlκ) 16:50, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's a fundamental rule of behavior. Gamaliel 23:03, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

page should be kept regardless of it's whatever.i love you! could you please help me get my pages going like this this a an attribute to the few people who've got it an they know it! a+++++

Later nomination

Still kept. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:46, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Recent listing removed. See Talk:Don't be a dick#Delete? for previous discussion.

  • Comment: I don't know who listed it again. I say verily, people who want to keep it should realize some of editors feel it very agressive and obscene and how it is far from bulding the community. --Aphaia++ 03:22, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
  • And some editors don't and want it kept, as the previous vote clearly demonstrates. Theresa knott 22:30, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. This is often linked from the English Wikipedia, and serves a useful purpose. If it offends your sensibilities, don't use it. Ambi 12:58, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep under the current name. "Don't be a dick" works well. As for the potential offence involved in describing other users as "dicks", well, consider what else it may have been called ... --fuddlemark 13:20, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Title change

The current title ("Don't be unpleasent") doesn't make sense. It's not just about being pleasant, or this would simply redirect to incivility. It's about not being unpleasant, an idiot, annoying, problematic, trolling, and various other things. Would Don't be a jerk (wiktionary:jerk) be more acceptable if people are finding the word dick so offensive? Wiktionary defines it in part as foolish or disagreeable, which seems to fit the description better than "unpleasant" does. Angela 10:12, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

I concur!--82.35.9.11 17:32, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

I feel I can't express my own feeling in any other languages than my mother tongue so I write in it: 前のタイトルに戻した人がいたので、差し戻しました。 私がどれだけ不快に思っているか外国語で書くのは到底不可能なので、日本語で書かせてもらいます。

メタは多言語コミュニティである以上、あなたがたが英語で書くのと同様、私が日本語で書くことも正統な行為だと私は考えます。あなたがたが何をガイドラインにしようとかまいませんが卑猥な言葉をつかうならそれを他のコミュニティに持ち込むべきではなく、また他のコミュニティをまきこむべきではなかったのです。あなたがたの例のガイドラインでどれだけ私が不愉快でいたたまれない思いをしているか、移動したあなたには到底想像ができないのでしょうが、私は本当にいやな思いをしています。どんな権利があってそんなことを他のコミュニティにおしつけることができるのか、説明してください。

英語になり他の言語になり訳してくださる方がいれば、幸いに存知ます。 --Aphaia++ 01:02, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

From Babelfish: I feel I can't express my own feeling in any other languages than my mother tongue so I write in it: Because the person who reset to the title before was, it sent back. I think just which unpleasantly, because possibly it is impossible, to write in foreign language, you make write in Japanese. Is the meta above multi language communities, when your abnormal play writes in English, that similar, also the fact that I write in Japanese it is orthodox behavior, I think. That your abnormal play will designate what as the guideline, you are not concerned, but if obscene word is used, to the other community should not be brought that, in addition the firewood densely being truly not to be coming, does the other community. Just which I was unpleasant with the guideline of example of your abnormal play and whether it does the thinking which cannot be accumulated, it meaning that possibly the imagination is not possible to you who were moved the ginger, I have thought truly well. There being some right, whether it is possible to be accustomed to designating such a thing as the other community, please explain. It becomes English and becomes other language and the one if translating is, you know fortunately. Aphaia
I'm sorry you find it abnormal. I don't think the word jerk is necessarily obscene, but if you do regard it as an issue, can you think of a word which means the same as the original title? "Unpleasant" isn't at all the same. Is your objection purely to the word chosen, or also to the fact it is going to insult people it is used against. If the latter is the case, even a completely non-obscene word like "idiot" is going to be a problem, isn't it? Angela 08:49, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Sorry for confusion, I didn't mean your proposal. Someone moved it back again and that was what I complained. My argument is concerned with purely word chosen, I just point out it is contradict those who claim this is a good guideline don't mind to embarass others who are really embarassed with the obscenity within its title. I can't feel ease with such obscenity at all and strongly oppose to keep it on meta as is - but I don't care how En people call it on their project. I wan't just not to be annoyed here on meta. Thank you. --Aphaia++ 18:56, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

The thing is, Aphaia, is that the name has been DBAD since forever - and that's how everyone knows it on dozens of Wikipedia user and policy pages. It's a little late to try and re-write it now. I'm sorry you don't care about how other people feel; perhaps you should just not read this page. Dan100 10:21, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Aphaia, sorry, but I think the title should stay "don't be a dick" because it is a meme. Changing "dick" to "unpleasant" just does not have the same meaning and weight. This is just so... Is that SO important ? Anthere

I disagree with Aphaia, and agree with Anthere, and Angela, and Dan, and others. In fact, I strongly, strongly disagree that "don't be a dick" is in any way offensive to anyone in the way it is intended. Honest. This should remain where it was made.
James F. (talk) 20:59, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Jeff、あなたやあなたの文化圏が破廉恥で恥知らずでこうした倒錯した卑猥な表現をためらわないということは、それを他の人間や文化に押し付けることができるということを意味しません。他文化を尊重するというなら、それを行動でみせるべきでしょう。重要かということについていえば、もちろんこうした卑猥な言葉が気軽に使われたりしないということはきわめて重要です。Dan100こそ自分がいかに不当なことをいっているか省みたほうがいいんじゃないのですか。--Aphaia++ 01:54, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Translation: Jeff, you and your cultural sphere in destruction honor such the obscene expression which is inverted as for the notion that where, you do not hesitate, does not mean the fact that with the shame not knowing that the other human and it is possible to push to culture. If you say, that other culture is respected, that should be shown with conduct probably. Whether the importance if you say concerning the notion that where you say, quite it is important for such obscene word not to use of course with ease. Very Dan100 by his how means unjust thing, is the one which is reflected upon is to call not to be? --Aphaia++ 01:54, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

I realize it's about to be edited to a version that makes some kind of sense, but I just want to note for posterity that the version of the article I found when I clicked on it just now (02:50, 3 August 2005, UTC) is the funniest thing ever. It's listed under the title "Don't be unpleasent" (sic), but not only is "unpleasant" mispelled, the actual text of the article still immediately starts "don't be a dick." AND the talk page is listed under "Don't be dick" (sic). Comedy gold. 68.226.239.73

Why was the title changed? It wasn't in the least bit offensive. And, more importantly, why did whoever changed the title not have the courtesy to fix the double redirects? Leithp 12:06, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
Well, the discussion's pretty well recorded on this page, but to sum up: some people were concerned that a policy title that included profanity was either "offensive" or "lacked dignity." There was some discussion, and the general consensus seemed to be in favor of keeping the article as "don't be a dick," partly because that's how the rule has been stated on the English-language Wikipedia for a very long time. However, Aphaia, above - apparently after doing some research on what the word means, as she is not a native English speaker - found that the word was "nasty" and made her profoundly uncomfortable. She pointed out that many Meta users are from non-English-speaking Wiki communities, and just because the English Wikipedia community has traditionally used the term "dick" doesn't mean that members of other communities less accepting of "obscenity" should have to see it on Meta. An edit war ensued, with Aphaia moving the page to "don't be unpleasant" and assorted others moving it back to "don't be a dick," up until Datrio locked the page. I'm not clear on why the compromise proposal of using "don't be a jerk" wasn't used, though, since as many different people have noted, "don't be unpleasant" simply does not carry the same meaning at all. 68.226.239.73
If there were a vote, you can count me on the side of returning the page back to DBAD (I came here in shock because someone actually cited as policy "Don't be unpleasant" and wondered if someone had made weak, Bowdlerized version of the existing policy). However, it looks as though it is currently just one against six or seven for the change, so I doubt a vote would need to be called. Asbestos 10:22, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry I missed the debate - oh well. Anyway, IMHO Aphaia has a good point about this possibly being offensive to non-native speakers (it would be fine on en: because people are expected to more or less know native english there). I just can't help but think this is a unneccesary dysphemism for something like "Don't be mean" or "Don't be a jerk" that would be better here. Oh well, take care everyone :). Ryan Norton T | @ | C 23:42, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Protected

I protected the page from any moves. Now, like the IP above mentioned, we have an unpleasant page, with a dicky talk page! Anyway, I'll let things stirr down a bit, then I'll unprotect it and give everyone a free hand. Datrio 08:50, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

I protected the page again since the move war continued. --Elian

Hm, looks like now this is protected against editing and not just moves: I think that was unintentional, so am unprotecting and reprotecting against moves only. Mindspillage (spill yours?)

If only people followed this one, we wouldn't need any other (Oh and the name is great) en:User:Fornadan

Ext link

Keeping in mind that the "dick" in the title was originally a euphemism for "fuckhead", I've placed a link to "What Makes A Fuckhead?" by David Kendrick. I've asterisked the word and used the fsckhead.html version of the URL in the hope of not causing Aphaia apoplexy - David Gerard 13:41, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

And at least two people read the above but didn't follow the link. Don't Bowdlerise Meta ;-) - David Gerard 13:56, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
A fuckhead, as defined by Mr. Kendrick, appears to be identical to someone with Narcissistic Personality Disorder. If "narcissist" were substituted for "fuckhead" I suspect just about any clinician (which I am not, but I am experienced with narcissists) familiar with narcissists would endorse it as a lay definition. Narcissists seem to be emboldened by the lack of consequences on the Internet and the inability of normal people to get away from them. I doubt all dicks are narcissists, but all narcissists are dicks.70.91.235.10 18:27, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Suggested new name!

I suggest that, in the interests of political correctness, this page be moved to We sincerely hope that you will refrain from being a penis. Thanks, The Management.

In addition to being kinder and more courteous, it uses the more clinical term "penis" rather than the potentially offensive slang term "dick".

--Node ue 03:28, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

In the interests of helping the project, I have made the above link a redirect to this article - David Gerard 13:56, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
We had a management? We are manageable? I was under the impression we were unmanageable :P -- Cat chi? 18:37, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
I think that political correctness takes away from the spirit of the article. It's almost meant to be light-hearted, as is the Ignore-the-rules rule. Sorta to uplift possible wikipedians and give them the courage they need to contribute. Flame0001 19:25, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
I think that was their point all along. ;-) 70.149.84.236 01:27, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Welcome to a higher level, people!   IP 213.114.87.195 23:07, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
In the online gaming world, we refer to dicks as arsehats. :) --24.160.80.27 14:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
It is hypocritical to use coarse language when arguing for courtesy. NCdave 11:42, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I strongly agree--hypocritical and counterproductive. Moreover, like much slang, especially crude slang, the title of this article is intellectually lazy and imprecise (fuzzy). (I don't find it particularly clever or humorous either.)144.92.123.237 17:11, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this is offensive and crude. This does not belong in an encyclopedia. 24.131.153.211 17:16, 19 January 2009 (UTC)