Talk:Don't be a dick/Archives/2007

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 2007, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date. See current discussion or the archives index.

Don't be a cunt

  • First, Don't be a dick is Vulgar, though I can take it.
  • Second, it's sexist - so you must include the above as well!

Yours truly, 14:24, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

For the beloved women of the world

Now your beautifil genitilia can be afford equal justice, and you can tell a guy, or gal: Don't be a cunt!

PS: I, personally would not use women's genitals for this vulgar purpose; but for me, a cunt is stronger than a dick, and can easily swallow the latter.
Yours truly, 14:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree with the "sexist" aspect. Men might call each other "cunts" all the time, but can anyone here attest to having called or witnessed (including oneself) the calling of a woman a "dick"? I'd be happy to hear that it's just my cultural vocabulary and a woman being a dick is common in other parts of the world... — 01:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

"Don't be a dick" is a common saying around the English-speaking world and is not as vulgar as "Don't be a cunt". Cbrown1023 talk 01:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

In total agreement that "Don't be a dick" is indeed sexist. I'm not aware of any country that calls women "dicks". Perhaps "don't be a little bitch" would be more appropriate? That can work well towards men and women. Nonetheless my personal preference lies with "don't be a cunt". It's eloquent and sums up the point marvellously. 03:41, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
ROFL 18:34, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Dont be a dick is stupid DO you know it means its a CRAPPY insault, calling someone a penis thats the CRAPPYEST insault i mean really.CUNT is MUTCH better who thought of that a CUNT. 11:12, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Do you speak English? 09:28, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

No barriers to stop a dick!

"Although nobody is empowered to ban or block somebody for being a dick" ...well, that's only true for WP. Most forums have severe rules against flamers (though my own do not.) Since the non-WP community links to this article, I've added "nobody on WP is empowered..." Also, when apologizing for dickly behavior (dickian? dickish? penile?), public apology is highly recommended. -- 12:14, 17 April 2007 (UTC) wbeaty -Bill Beaty

Science proves this page is named correctly!

High-testosterone people reinforced by others' anger, new study finds - David Gerard 11:07, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

That strikes me as anti-male and probably political. Learning a sequence better because it's followed by an angry face does not mean it's reinforcing. It could mean it just makes it more memorable, for someone who's brain is more keyed in (because of testosterone) to displays of hostility or anger. It seems to me an experiment that wanted to test this question would use the displays of anger as an outcome of doing something correctly and see if that effects the frequency positively or negatively, i.e. directly test in the conventional way to see if it's reinforcing. If it only takes ten seconds to think of a more conventional and direct way to test the question, why would they use something that's one-off and requires you to accept an unproven assumption? The researcher quoted in the article seems more than a little bit too confident in his conclusion, considering how preliminary this would be at best. I'm not sure this constitutes proof of anything, although I do perceive the humor. 18:53, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Change the name!

Don't be a jerk or Don't be a meanie, not all this immature language. Wikipedia and its sister projects should not be as teenagers, swearing their mouths off for no real reason. I'm embarrassed to work for Wikipedia, what would my dear mother think? -- 03:19, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

You complain about immature language and then suggest "Don't be a meanie"? EPThorn 13:39, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
im sorry i agree... since when is a slang term for a penis helpful to anyone on this site?! i suggest a name change to something less offensive, rude, and sexist. 09:51, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

How immature!

This is immature! I thought Wikipedia encouraged sophistication. 00:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia admins decide if a page is kept, and alot of people supported the move of this page. Apparently more people are stupid. Look at the average American in school. Fights, bullying. They are uncontrolable because we've told them no one can control them. If you can't control your mouth, its a good guess you can't control yourself. If you can't control yourself, there's a high chance you get involved in criminal activities. 00:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

One of the worst articles in wikipedia

Being so vulgar at the beginning I thought it was vandalized, because the name of it wasn't very serious, but later noticed it was not. The article talks a lot about not being a dick, but doesn't explain what that is, everyone has his/her own conception of what this means, so its quite ambiguous. The article says that you may be a dick if lot of people tell you you are one, but then it says calling someone a dick is being a dick too. This means, that if I'm the only dick in wikipedia i would never get called a dick, and then I could consider I'm not one... since no one is telling me I am one. Also means that if just not enough people call me a dick, they are probably more of a dick than me.

In simple words I think this article is ambiguous, has very little useful content, and is quite contradictory.

Also i don't think that changing the word to "asshole" or "jerk" would make the article any better if its not defined what would be considered to be like that.

I think the best and more in the lines of wikipedia thing that we could do, would be to show a list of behaviors we would we would want people to avoid...

I agree. I made all similar points before reading yours or Peter Blaise's posts. I want to hold to the hope it's no more than a joke. And let me add wikimedia is filled with unnecessary drama the world can do without. Article/essays like this: not helping. 06:44, 22 September 2007 (UTC)Nadia

Very Sexist

What's wrong with dicks? I've always hated that expression. Dicks do lots of good things, too. I agree, change the name. 04:01, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

What about Cock?

Dont be a Cock? Can we have a redirect please. -- 00:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I have never heard anyone say "Dude, stop being a cock." Being a 'dick' is a common phenomenon, on the other hand. EPThorn 13:41, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Calling someone a "cock" instead of a dick is common in Britain. Maybe notsomuch in USA. As with dick, it's an insult pretty much always directed at men; not something you could really call a woman. 22:52, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Let's grow up. If "Don't be a dick" belongs anywhere, it belong on someone's personal web site, not on any group web site!

  Peter Blaise responds: I find "Don't be a dick" offensive and totally inappropriate for ANY discussion between any parties anywhere, let alone a MediaWiki software documentation site. If MediaWiki is to grow, we must expand our audience, and that means expanding our intellectual capacity. I find it especially pointed to read Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks. When we respond with "don't be a dick", that's not setting any example of an alternative; we are diving into the same realm of unacceptable behavior to which we are supposedly objecting! I suggest we all read the following link before responding to anyone we think are "dicks", PLEASE! A small quote:
"...Instead of taking offense ... thank each
and every one of the people who take the time to
complain about something on your site that didn't
work for them. For every complaint you receive, you
can bet there are at least dozens of visitors who
have thought the same thing but didn't take the time
to tell you about it [and never return!]. And, if no
one tells you, you have missed the opportunity to
fix it for everyone. Don't shoot the messenger and
alienate the very individuals who obviously like
your site enough to want to help you improve it for
them... thereby improving it for everyone else..."
     So, instead of saying, "don't be a dick" we can learn to say, "thank you," whenever we bump into a surprising, provocative contribution. May I also suggest we sit back for a little while, and let it our own artificial emotive energy resolve itself - self soothe. Let's not be in such a hurry to pounce on other people because of the way they contribute. Let's not willfully ignore the content of their contributions. I've noticed that the more any one of us makes ourselves "the police", and negates the contributions of others, the more we get cranky, self-frustrated, and self-immolated. Let's cool off, back off, and let the vacuum of our (benevolent, please) inattention get filled by other volunteers, like me and so many others who have so much to offer, but get slammed, and go away, never to return! Argh!
     I think there's a truism to the fact that wikis grow most when so-called "authority" and security are invisible, where anonymity is not an impediment to immediate contribution, and patience, tolerance, acceptance, and equivalent consideration are a well practiced virtues.
- Click! Love and hugs, Peter Blaise peterblaise 11:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

What, are we kids?

Wikimedia is not the place for immature teenage humor! Everyone who voted to keep this page are immature, and will never grow up! This is a place for knowledge, last I checked. "Don't be a dick" and "Don't give a fuck" are not for Wikipedia or Wikimedia. "Don't be a dick" and "Don't give a fuck" belong on Uncyclopedia and Encyclopedia Dramatica. Please, kindly rename this into "Don't be a jerk" and "Don't give a crap". -- 02:47, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Calling "everyone who voted to keep this page" immature will (a) not win you any converts and (b) is a perfect example of being a dick- since though it may not violate any guideline, it is clearly unhelpful behavior. EPThorn 13:42, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Give it a rest

People who enter Wikimedia can write what they want so long as it is accurate and appropriate. I for one do not find "Don't be a dick" and "Don't give a fuck" to be inappropriate. Plus, how is "Don't give a crap" any better? And changing it to "Don't be a jerk" would make Wikimedia look more kiddish! The work "jerk" is more commonly used by younger people than older ones, whereas the word "dick" is used more by older people. It makes sense to me. Why not to you?


I think this essay should be left the way it is

As a relative newcomer, I find this and like essays to be great comic relief from reading rules and guidelines and working on editing.

I also agree that if these suggestions were followed by more people, we wouldn't really need other rules. The "dick" reference certainly grabs a person's attention, and I can think of a few people I would love to share these netiquette guidelines with (not here, don't really know anybody yet, LOL).

LoriM5160 08:24, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

It's kinda stupid and reeks of ED crap but w/ needs more humor. -- 23:50, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

This Page

I am not part of Wikimedia, i'm part of Wikipedia, but pages like this are RIDICULOUS. I can't believe you would name a page this. I would consider you at least changing the name. I'm surprised no admin has yet to take charge. -- 17:10, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Since when was 'dick' so offensive?

The last context I was in where 'dick' was considered offensive was primary school (in New Zealand). Amongst the over-10s I know it is a very gentle reprimand that you use in contexts in which you can't say 'fucktard'. Is 'dick' seriously offensive in other countries, or are people just being precious? -- 20:25, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Useful advice

I think this page's name should be changed to "Don't be a bastard". I am a Wikipedian. And I state that should be done-- 00:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Nah. Doesn't sound as good. And I state it shall stay, and be good.EPThorn 13:43, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Proposal to rename article

Hi, I am a Wikipedian. After I purposed my MfD to delete the Wikipedia version of w:WP:DICK and failed, I purposed to rename m:WP:DICK. However, several editors point out that whatever consensus I created in Wikipedia doesn't have any force on Meta. Failed attempts to make changes in Wikipedia prompted me to Meta. So now, what I want to do is to get a consensus to possibly rename the page title, which I think is extremely inflammatory. Any comments is welcomed. Thanks Chrishomingtang 05:55, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

What do you propose it be changed to? I think it's perfectly fine, but my threshold for what I find offensive is, I've found, much higher than most people. EVula // talk // // 06:10, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't know. But something nicer. Chrishomingtang 06:34, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Something nicer - What about Don't be a dick :-) ? Hillgentleman 07:33, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Please do not be a dick? --Herby talk thyme 07:36, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
We sincerely hope that you will refrain from being a penis. Thanks, The Management exists. Snowspinner 13:14, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
First of all, if the title is changed, then the whole essay would need to be rewritten, to remove the word "dick". Secondly, the essay is very contradicktory as it states that ""Telling someone "Don't be a dick" is something of a dick-move in itself" and then it goes on to say "If you've been labeled as a might be wise to consider the possibility that it is true.". Two opposites there. However the essay does suggest that you not call somebody a dick, nor label them one, but it does not clearly state DO NOT REFER ANY EDITOR TO THIS PAGE, as it probably should, just to be clear. Then of course there it a possibility that this page is for humorous purposes. If that is the case, it needs to be labeled as such. - Rjd0060 14:51, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
See en:WP:IAR for a page with similar applicability. Snowspinner 18:16, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
How does that have anything to do with this? - - Rjd0060 19:03, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
I mean. Can't we replace the word "dick" with some better words? I can't think of one right now. But the idea of putting a label in the article sounds pretty good to me. Chrishomingtang 00:48, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
I think so too. Have to think of some ideas though. - Rjd0060 03:40, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Don't be a dick is what people did say, are saying, and will continue to say. The essay describes a point of view of some people. It is already moderated with sufficient sense of :-). You are invited to write your own better essay. Hillgentleman 03:44, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

(general comment) registered on meta just to say this: Support the sentiment, and support the name change. Looking over this talk page, it looks like a lot of users feel the same. Looking at the top of the page it appears that the name change should have already happened. This page is used to attack people and it serves only to inflame dialog between editors. With a name change, the sentiment is kept, but the appeal for using as an attack, that an editor would often not otherwise make, is removed. I would prefer these attacks did not have the appearance of endorsement by the wiki-community. Thanks, R. Baley 05:31, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Look. We're not going to change the name. This is one of the perennial (read: pointless) debates. Just live with it.
James F. (talk) 07:32, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Quite frankly, that is not your decision. By the looks of things above, there are more than a few people in support of some sort of change to this essay. Instead of changing the name, how about a sentence to be added, just to clearly state that the essay is not to be used when referring to other editors. - Rjd0060 15:34, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Please keep in mind that it's a two way street. There are plenty of people, such as myself, that feel that the essay is just fine the way it is. Personally, I feel that the people who are offended by it are unfortunately thin-skinned. EVula // talk // // 16:13, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Why say its a two-way street? I said I support keeping the essay, and I am fine leaving it as is. I would in no way be offended if somebody referred me to it, although that is obviously not good behavior to do that (I would know). However, I proposed adding a sentence in there. I don't care if it is or not, just an idea. Jdforrester is the one who thinks he can make the final decision on this, with blatant disregard to the consensus policy. - Rjd0060 19:08, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
I was referring to the "it's not your decision" bit. Usually, when I see people saying that, they're guilty of what their in the middle of admonishing. :) I don't have a problem with that line being added, superfluous as I may consider it. I'm just opposed to redoing it just because of the word "dick". EVula // talk // // 19:15, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
I completely agree with you. The only reason I said it wasn't his decision, is because of his comment that said "We are not going to change the name" and "Just live with it". Completely uncalled for, as he is not the dictator of Wikimedia. - Rjd0060 23:24, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
James F., only a dick would tell other people to shut up:)) Please reread the article;))) 09:17, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps, WP:POLITE, WP:CONSIDERATE, WP:RESPECTFUL, or variants thereof would be more positive. Instead of having a negating essay there could just be a positive affirmative essay. If everyone was polite, considerate, and respectful there would be no need for other policies. I support renaming and changing the essay. --Emesee 15:25, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
An essay is and essay is an essay. It describes a point of view. You are more than welcome to write your own point of view. Whether participants are allowed to refer to it, is a matter of local policy.Hillgentleman 16:10, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Just for clarification. The discussion has nothing to do with POV or the essay being an essay or rewriting. What I purposed is a renaming of the essay. Chrishomingtang 21:07, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, in that case, I strongly oppose. The only thing I would do to the essay is add a line at the top advising editors not to refer other editors to it. - Rjd0060 00:23, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
  • The article is already essay-tagged. And your "to refer other editors to it" is ambiguous. Do you mean calling others a dick, asking them not to be one, suggesting that they read this essay, or something else, or a bit of everything? Quote: "Telling someone "Don't be a dick" is something of a dick-move in itself". Hillgentleman 10:36, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
I know it already says that. But I am talking about a noticeable sentence at the top of the page (ie: DO NOT REFER ANY EDITOR TO THIS PAGE). - Rjd0060 14:59, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
That seems a bit excessive; sometimes there are valid reasons to refer an editor to this page. We can't really control whether someone links to a page or not, we can only take over-the-line insistences on a case-by-case basis. EVula // talk // // 01:01, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Renaming this essay seems to be a perennial proposal. At this point it's been named this for quite a while. Some things get part of their effectiveness from what they are named, and this is one of them. Renaming it would not be a good idea in my view. ++Lar: t/c 14:12, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, the sentence "DO NOT REFER ANY EDITOR TO THIS PAGE" is unclear. If we do decide to put a notice on top of the essay, then a clearer notice must be used. We can say something like: "This essay is about ... Please do not use this essay as the mean to attack other editors." At any rate, I support both the renaming and the addition of a disclaimer if either one of these proposal wins out. Chrishomingtang 21:20, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
That's starting to run into another essay, w:WP:BEANS. :) EVula // talk // // 21:25, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  • The essay is as it is. Chrishomingtang, Your proposal lies outside the scope of this essay. Whether it is acceptable to use this essay by any means should come from the consensus of the local community; it certainly cannot be imposed via adding a little tag on meta. Even if you do, it will not work. Hillgentleman 00:13, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
I really don't understand why you think my proposal lies outside the scope of this essay. This is relevant here. As for consensus, that is exactly what I am trying to find. Chrishomingtang 02:06, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
As I said, how to deal with this essay is a matter of local policy; For there is no wikimedia-wide consensus on your opinion. The essay is itself. If for nothing else, it is part of the history of wikimpedia. Your statement is on how to use this essay, and hence is a meta-statement (no pun intended).:-) -Hillgentleman 02:48, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

There has been a problem with this essay for years. Not due to the sentiment, but due to the language used to express the sentiment. As I am not American I wasn't clear what "a dick" is, so I had to look it up - what I got was "an abrasive and inconsiderate person", and things fell into place. I'm not sure why "a dick" was chosen in the first place - the language is a bit juvenile, and is certainly not encyclopedic. The choice of a slang term (and one that is geographical at that) has been the cause of problems for this essay, and resulted in it being removed from Wikipedia. The redirect itself has been subjected to discussions on deletion twice, but not carried through because the essay remains here on Wikimedia. Now we have a proposal for renaming. If Phil Sandifer had not been so playful when he wrote the original essay we wouldn't be having these problems. But, then again, the predominantly young American male editors of Wikipedia might not have taken up the essay so readily if it did not use the sort of language that appealed to them. But today, we have moved on. I support the idea of a change of name. I suggest the new name be Don't be inconsiderate. Less catchy perhaps, but also less controversial, and as such more likely to be used by considerate editors, and less likely to be subjected to repeated discussions for deletion. I have made changes within the essay which makes the meaning much clearer, especially to those who are not American males under the age of 30. SilkTork 21:52, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Not to be rude, but I've reverted the edit; there's no clear consensus to rename it at all, much less to that in particular. However, I did attempt to address one of your concerns, in that you had no idea what "dick" referred to.[1] However, the language not being encyclopedic is irrelevant; Meta is not an encyclopedia. EVula // talk // // 22:05, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
An edit is an edit. Though, I do dislike a revert as much as any other editor. I am not a vandal and would expect someone, especially an Admin, to follow the guidelines. EVula would do well to read the Revert link and become familiar with the procedure. My edit was clearly a good faith edit, and was supported by the comment above. Difficult for people to look at my suggestion at the moment. I don't wish to get into a petty revert war, and would hope that EVula would see sense and restore the edit. If not, then people can view it here and make their own mind up. Don't be a dick indeed! SilkTork 22:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
SilkTork, You are free, welcome, and invited to write your own better essay. You cannot make a point of view disappear by bending an essay that describes it to your own point of view. Hillgentleman 00:20, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
I've now done that: en:Wikipedia:Don't be inconsiderate - though I don't consider I have bent it to my point of view. Do you feel that "dick" means something other than "inconsiderate"? I would agree there is some misunderstanding of the term, and that is part of why I made an attempt to clarify the meaning. Which point of view do you feel I have altered? I'm a little unclear as to your meaning. Regards SilkTork 10:55, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
For example, the self-reference "Telling someone "Don't be a dick" is something of a dick-move in itself, so don't bandy the criticism about lightly." cannot be recreated. :-) --Hillgentleman 02:51, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

A thought just occurred to me (Uh-oh). Above, it is stated the Phil Sandifer is the original author. Is that true? The history for the essay (here on meta) begins with a Transwiki from EN. But the essay doesn't exist on EN, as there is only a redirect here. Anyways, whoever the original author is, needs to be asked if he or she would like to make these changes. If not, well, it is an essay, and essays here on any Wikimedia project express sole opinion of the author, and we cannot change an opinion. - Rjd0060 23:16, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

    • Rjd0060, The essay is out of the hands of the "original" author and has its own life. Hillgentleman 00:20, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Okay. - Rjd0060 03:26, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I am the original author of the page. User:Snowspinner 03:07, 7 November 2007 (UTC) (Logging in is for lamers. Or, at least, not for me, it seems.)

I fully support changing this essay: I have thought for some time it is one of the greatest embarrassments to Wikimedia that it exists (and particularly that it exists on Meta, so it applies not just to the English Wikipedia but to all Wiki projects!). SilkTork's essay linked above, 'Don't be inconsiderate', is a perfect replacement; keeping the substance of the essay while removing the big problem with it, its childish and offensive language. I find it hard to imagine that anyone could consider the current version of the essay superior to SilkTork's replacement, but if you do, could you please explain why you think the current version should be kept? (Likewise, if you agree with me, please say so below.) 00:13, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Read what we have said above. Hillgentleman 05:07, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I hope that people realize that Wikipedia is not censored. Of course, the decision to name or rename a page rests with consensus to determine whether the word 'dick' is appropriate. I, for one, will fight to the death any attempts to change this page from its current title which is perfectly expressive of the topic at hand. Well, okay, I won't fight to the death... but I will whine about it a lot and nobody wants that. Would people here pick up a book off of a library shelf entitled "nigger" [[2]] and protest it because it uses an offensive term? The title of this essay is exactly why it is so popular; it is called exactly what it is about. EPThorn 10:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I fully support a change in name. The current term is immature, uncivil, and sexist. Why, when something much less controversial could be used, should we on purpose choose to use this more innapropriate term, just through pure laziness or stubbornness. The meaning of the article won't be changed by selecting a more appropriate term, it will just make this whole discussion unneeded, so that with the new name, we can carry on editing wikipedia, without needing to discuss keeping this awful current title. 09:59, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Changing the name dilutes the message. And that would be bad. It's that simple. ++Lar: t/c 15:33, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
There are many more suitable words that could be used, there is no need to choose this when there are less controversial alternatives. I do suggest replacing this article with the one suggested above. 10:37, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

The name of the article gives it's message more power, imo. 17:34, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that while the title is quite, shall we say, forceful that is a good thing in this case. This is primarily intended as an internal article, and hence the tone reflects a way of dealing with the more opinionated and jaded amongst us. The idea is to convey in terms familiar to the "dick" what he/she is doing and how it is not constructive. I think that more more softly worded alternative would be less functional and convey less meaning.

The title of this essay should not be changed. "Don't be a dick" has a certain quality that just can't be duplicated with "Don't be a jerk" or "Don't be inconsiderate", and the fact that "dick" is somewhat offensive is a strength of this page, not a weakness. Much like a lot of humor, some people are just going to get it and some are not. — It's dot com 22:39, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
The title is puerile when it could be making the point in a more intelligent way. Don't be an idiot would work just as well. What's worse though is the profanity at the bottom - specifically the word "F*&%head". It can be made milder easily in the way just done, keeping the message but avoiding offending a lot of people and corrupting young minds:) I shall do so if no one objects with a good reason. 09:17, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
"It can be made milder easily" <--- This is an essay and it expresses a point of view, which you need not share. To make it milder changes the point of view. You are welcome to write such an essay yourself. If your essay turns out to be better, people will refer to yours, per the law of the jungle. Hillgentleman 09:22, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
On top of that, I charge you to explain why "Don't be an idiot" is more intelligent, milder or making the point better. Hillgentleman 09:26, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I just noticed that this section has some recent activity. To repeat what I've said below, the reason to include "dick" or some other vulgar term in the title of this page is that it makes the point that one can scrupulously follow etiquette and rules of civility and courtesy and still be a dick. Just as, as the essay says, you can be right, you can be correct in advocating particular facts, and still be a dick. This page is NOT about courtesy or etiquette - it's about a principle that someone genuinely acting in good faith would follow regardless of whether or not their habitual manner is acting like they're at a tea party eating crumpets.

So - the title of this page should NOT be softly worded, as an active member of several WikiMedia projects I oppose any name change. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 15:51, 26 April 2008 (UTC)