Wikipedia talk:Please be a giant dick, so we can ban you

Important: If you have an issue with the name of this essay, please take it up with Wikipedia:Don't be a dick instead, as this essay is more or less a direct (if humorous) response to that one.

Wikipedia humor

Not funny. ... small dickery's more successfull ... BTW Nobody ever reads the discussions, where are teh holywarz? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.147.0.8 (talk) 13:18, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

I support this dick circumcision proposal. -- Cat ^chi? 23:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

We need pictures with bigger dickery. 72.193.59.97 (talk) 06:22, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

errr

• Deleting images without removing the resulting redlinks, and then claiming you're too busy deleting more images to go back to remove said red links.

You know, there are bot scripts that do that pretty well... (yes it's sure, I own one)

DarkoNeko x 22:07, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I am removing the pictures

While it is funny to put those there. I am afraid those pictures amount to personal attack against the two US president and VP. While I agree that they are BAD world leader, the context used here is a personal attack. SYSS Mouse (talk) 16:07, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

That's why I removed the Dick Cheney picture that was put up recently. I don't know why the missile keeps getting removed. I think it's funny. What's too much about it? WLU (talk) 01:05, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I like the missile too. Perhaps we can take this matter to mediation? Jehochman ^Talk 05:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Hardly neccesary; it's been two removals/restorations. I oppose inclusion of the image. It is neither funny, nor good taste. The other images were funny in my opinion, but it was right to remove them. seresin ( ¡? ) 05:13, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it's funny, I'm confused over why it may be in poor taste? Mediation is kinda extreme given it's a humour page. Seresin, did you have another image suggestion? There's always a picture of an actual giant dick (or John Holmes (actor) if we could find him) 'cause wikipedia's not censored :) There used to be a picture of Dick Nixon ([1]) which I found intensely amusing, but it was removed by SYSS Mouse (though Dick Nixon is dead, so there's no BLP issue). It is an obvious humour page, and I think parody is allowed in Florida. No picture makes for a much blander page :( WLU (talk) 15:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

After rereading the article and disussion. Please put it back. SYSS Mouse (talk) 17:54, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Great! Done. Tricky Dick has been resurrected. Though it's too bad there's no commons of John Holmes. Think of the caption - a truly giant dick, dicks don't get bigger than this, go hard or go home, ha! WLU (talk) 18:07, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

However, since I am not an American, would you care to inform me of why Dixon is called "Triky Dick"? I also changed the caption to emphasis the Dick term is a political reference. SYSS Mouse (talk) 03:34, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

See Watergate. Did you know that his campaigns used the slogan "They can't lick our Dick!" [2]image (Lick means beat in American English). Jehochman ^Talk 04:22, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

{undent)FWIW Tricky Dick was an old nickname RMN had because he was slippery, manipulative and generally got what he want by whatever means necessary. It's not really relevant to the page, I just think it's a funny nickname. Anyway, there's ridiculous edit warring over the page, and there's no real need. It's a funny page, it's meant to give a bit of warning to dickish editors. Let's settle on a page that's not going to get anyone in trouble. Richard Nixon is dead. Dick is a short form for Richard Nixon. Richard Nixon was powerful, hence the 'biggest dick in America' comment. It's funny, we can all appreciate the pun, but using Dick Cheney is going to be a magnet for BLP violations, and WAAAAY more attention than a humour page should be attracting. WLU (talk) 15:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed: Added to WP:LAME. SYSS Mouse (talk) 16:13, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Passive aggressive essays on wikipedia?

Is there any wiki essays on being passive aggressive? This is the defacto way which editors survive edit wars on Wikipedia. Inclusionist (talk) 03:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks REALLY!

This artical is talking about some of the $%^&!!! people do, and I have to aplade this person for creating this artical. THANKS!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.78.220.208 (talk) 21:23, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes I wonder did we make the warning on top of the page big enough... Admiral Norton ^(talk) 21:19, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Thatr becuz yur a fazist LOL!!!11!1!!11oneone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.33.59.183 (talk) 17:38, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Image Wars

Speaking as the original writer of this page, I don't care whether we have a image of Richard Nixon, a Nuclear Missile, or no image at all. Just so long as Dick Chaney isn't brought up. ^Thanks, _{Luc "Somethingorother" French} 16:06, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

RFC

Editors cannot agree which picture is to be used to use describe "Dick". The images in dispute are as follows: image:Peacekeeper missile.jpg image:Richard Cheney 2005 official portrait.jpg image:Nixon 30-0316a.jpg. The missile is considered as a sexual reference, Cheney picture has a WP:BLP concern as being personal attack. 22:33, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

• I liked Tricky Dick. Yilloslime (t) 22:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Once the RFC is done, someone must update this entry on WP:LAME. I mean, I know that the picture on a humour page is super important and y'know, stuff. But perhaps an edit war and RFC is slightly excessive. How about a penis-shaped building? I like this:

But others might find it excessive. WLU (talk) 20:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, I think if a humor-only page is controversial enough to result in a freaking RfC, the page should just be deleted. I think this page is funny and all, and it may even be a little useful in that it focuses us to think about how more subtle dick-ism can so profoundly harm the project, and that we should take that stuff seriously... but if it's going to cause all this bother, then seriously, screw it... --Jaysweet (talk) 20:50, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

It is only the image which to describe "dick" that is in dispute. The text is not in question.SYSS Mouse (talk) 22:35, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I really, really like the page, so I really, really don't want it deleted. I think a suitably huge picture of 30 Mary Street is quite adequate but how 'bout we select a different picture that's not going to violate BLP or piss anyone else off. WLU (talk) 22:55, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

"Dick" is, among other things, a slang term for "detective" - so how about an image of a detective? There are some good Sherlock Holmes images on Wikimedia Commons; I particularly like Image:Sherlock Holmes I.jpg. A possible caption might be, "Sherlock Holmes was a famous, if human-sized, dick" ("human-sized" being a play on "giant", as in the fantastical over-sized creatures). --Iamunknown 06:25, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Skyscrapers, towers and smokestacks (here the one of the former Friedrich Dick factory at Esslingen, Germany) are popular phallic symbols.

I find it quite inappropriate that the image of a real (living or deceased) person be used to illustrate "Dick", and would also find images of a sexual nature rather uncalled for. What's the problem with using the picture of either a fictitious person or an object (I found the image of a ballistic missile very much to the point) to illustrate the concept? It has the added bonus of not needlessly exposing us to a lawsuit and sparing some sensibilities too. Specifically, even though Nixon is no more, I find it just as inappropriate to use his picture as it would be to use Cheney's - even though I personnally have a rather dim view of both as politicians. In other words, I agree with WLU that we should select an image that won't piss off anybody.--Ramdrake (talk) 12:10, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

What absolutely lovely back and forth. I've replaced the picture with the Gherkin. I still don't know why the missile picture was so heartily objected to. WLU (talk) 14:09, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree that using the image of living or deceased person would be inappropriate - which is why I suggested a fictional person. I think, however, that the Gherkin is a fine illustration for the page. --Iamunknown 17:47, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the best solution is that every now and again, someone gets outraged and replaces the picture with something anodyne; then a bit later we get more adventurous, and so on, until the cycle repeats. As long as we're not edit warring this seems entirely in keeping with the spirit of the page William M. Connolley (talk) 19:17, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Suggestion: Change the article name from "giant dick" to something like "jerk". --Jagz (talk) 20:12, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Why? That'd take half the fun out of the article.--Ramdrake (talk) 22:23, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Getting the subtitle right would fix this. Building: This is domineering and comtemptible, therefore a giant dick. Or: This is mean and contemptible, therefore a giant dick. What's that? It's shaped like something? Rocket: Nuclear warheads are very dick like, but only people can be dicks. Or: Devices that cause a 200mph/322kph wind and lots of radiation are very dick like, but only people can be dicks. --209.244.31.53 (talk) 22:03, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

A polite subtitle with nuance. The current one and the hill figure are actually working well. 209.244.31.53 (talk) 20:42, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion: AfD --Jagz (talk) 01:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

William's suggestion is so freakin' meta that it seems to be the only way to go. The only question now is, do we have a set series of pictures that we always go through (I suggest starting with The Gherkin, then peacekeeper missile, statue of the guy with the cock, Richard Nixon, Dick Cheney, a 300px picture of an erection and the ultimate, a picture of GWB with a photoshopped oversized phallus), or do we have a long-term, slow competition to see who can be the most creative? I'm amused that the page was quiet for months, now there's a frenzy. Was there a posting on a noticeboard somewhere? WLU (talk) 19:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

The activity may be resulting from these links.1 2(titled:it is easy to deal with those things.) People do not like being directed to a page with an image they don't like. --209.244.31.53 (talk) 17:00, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. This is very troll-lke with those pictures. I'd rather set for no picture. SYSS Mouse (talk) 00:33, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

What about the female Wikipedians. There can be another page like, "Please be a nasty cunt, so we can ban you". --Jagz (talk) 21:51, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I was expecting an article about William Connelley, my mistake. Sorry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.13.101.105 (talk) 23:41, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Replace the main page...

The final BGD point on the list is Replace the main page with racial slurs/homophobic slurs/phallic references/scatological references/"WIKIPEDIA SUX0RZ!" Of course, unless it were April Fools' Day and some mischievous (and unoriginal) administrator had unprotected the main page, this course of gargantuan dickery would only be available for sysops. In my personal opinion, phallic behaviour should be an equal opportunities venture... would anyone care to propose an alternative? haz (talk) 17:12, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

DTFDN

Is "vandalistic" really in the DTFDN template boilerplate? Wow. Other misspelled words: "belived", "legitamate" and "requrested". I think the excellent humor evinced within the red box above is much funnier than this poorly targeted and badly implemented DTFDN template. Binksternet (talk) 04:42, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Dissaproval

This is very inappropriate. This makes us look bad. --Marshall T. Williams (talk) 01:08, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Compared to what? Binksternet (talk) 01:30, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Compared to the rest of Wikipedia. --How may I serve you? Marshall Williams2 01:36, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I personally find it hilarious. It's out-of-the-way enough that only editors will ever see it, and it brings a little humor to something otherwise serious as can be, not unlike WP:SPIDER. And who hasn't hoped at one time or another that a disruptive, but technically not rule-breaking, editor would start spewing racist comments, or make legal threats so you could have him blocked and be done with it?--Kingoomieiii ♣ Talk 13:15, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

It's these sorts of comments that just bug the hell out of me. You sound like the trolls that whined during April 1st when Wikipedia modified the main page to have a little fun. There is nothing wrong with putting some humor in your life. If this deeply bothers you, you REALLY need to get off of Wikipedia, and the Internet, and go outside. Wikipedia is a reputable source of information and always will be as long as the community continues to support it - But by no means should that community resort to a gestapo-like attitude in which all fun/humor is removed. At that point, it becomes a JOB. Wikipedia doesn't pay me to revert vandalism, and I'll be damned if I'm going to work 8-hours a day on fixing Wikipedia for free... Don't be so serious. Gpia7r (talk) 17:56, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Kingoomieiii asked above, "who hasn't hoped at one time or another that a disruptive, but technically not rule-breaking, editor would start spewing racist comments, or make legal threats so you could have him blocked and be done with it?"

I haven't, and I hope I never will. I always hope that difficult editors will change and work with us.

I also know better than to believe in the fairy-tale of "disruptive but technically not rule-breaking". We don't have firm rules, for one thing. Any time someone is being disruptive, they may be blocked for it, no matter how lawyerly they think they're toeing the line. There is no line; disruption is not okay. No one is entitled to three reverts, for instance.

When you see someone being disruptive and getting away with it, please let me know, or another admin who understands that this project is not a rules-based game. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:31, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Much appreciated

Kudos to the writers. Enigma^msg 03:43, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

"font of knowledge"

I realize this site is mostly dedicated to humour, so I will understand if no one takes me seriously. I just thought I should point out that WP:SETs show 753,000 Google hits for "fount of knowledge" but only 23,100 for "font of knowledge". If it matters enough, please consider adding the extra "u" in.

Warmest Regards, :)--thecurran let it off your chest 02:27, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Verdana is the font of knowledge. Comic Sans is the font of ignorance. :-) --NellieBly (talk) 03:32, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Font is correct in this sense. ÷seresin 03:59, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I am not saying "font" is incorrect. I just noted that a simple WP:GOOGLETEST shows that "fount of knowledge" is around 32.6 times as common as "font of knowledge". That's an order of magnitude and a half's difference. Since "font of knowledge" composes less than 3% of the usage of either, I can justify calling it very uncommon. Besides, as User:NellieBly pointed out humorously font is quite ambiguous. Warmest Regards, :)--thecurran Let it off your chest the past 07:16, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Well since "font" and "fount" are synonyms here, it makes no difference does it? Lexicografía (talk) 22:06, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Be civil

Please try to be civil about the personal name Dick. Of course that name, as well as several others, can have extraneous meanings. Can't you consider renaming this article and cleaning up your language: It is not necessary to offend people to make a valid point. Rlsheehan (talk) 16:05, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

"has not, has never been, nor will ever be"

I dunno, this seems like a fairly important community guideline to me! Lexicografía (talk) 22:05, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Should this essay be deleted?

Though I find this essay humorous, I feel it is at odds with Wikipedia's civility and AGF policies. The Eskimo (talk) 21:53, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Pages like this are inconsistent with WP:Civility, and have no place on Wikipedia, as they provide too much easy fodder for those inclined to cite them when violating Civility. When one anonymous IP editor cited this page during a disagreement with me when alluding to "veiled attacks", he/she cited this page, which came across fairly clearly as an insult. Wikipedia is not a place for publishing original humor, any more than publishing any other original material that does not serve the purpose of improving its articles or its policies and guidelines. And regardless of whether it this page was created for humor's sake, it certainly may convey the appearance of a policy or guideline page, especially to newbies/casual surfers, as it certainly does resemble one at a glance. Nightscream (talk) 03:56, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I disagree.

1. It is obvious from the hatnote that this is supposed to be humour and not a policy or guideline.
2. Rules about originality apply to article content.
3. Calling someone a giant dick is a blatant personal attack, which is why it is good that this page has the name it does. Blatant personal attacks are easier to deal with than veiled ones.
4. In the specific case of Talk:Zeitgeist: the Movie#Son/Sun the best approach is to ask the IP what the veiled personal attack was that you were supposed to have made. Having said that, you could also direct him to m:Don't be a dick where it says 'Telling someone "Don't be a dick" is usually a dick-move.'

Yaris678 (talk) 12:27, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Why not have an essay called Please tell that sl** wh*** admin XX to go f*** herself so we can ban you? Where's the threshold on a high traffic, open edited website, between what's funny to some and what's needlessly nettlesome to a swath of users? Gwen Gale (talk) 12:33, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

The implicit consensus seems to be that 'dick' is a word that is OK to use in limited circumstances. You can use it when describing certain types of bad behaviour but not when describing specific editors. Yaris678 (talk) 14:21, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I've used it to describe specific editors several times. It's just best to be damned sure that said person's dickishness is rock-solid and obvious to all, rather than just the product of an isolated, heated exchange. There is really nothing that is going to come of discussing this here though; if someone really feels strongly about it, send it to MfD. Tarc (talk) 14:24, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Even when it's "rock-solid and obvious to all", calling someone is "dick" is still not constructive, and not a good idea. There is always a better approach than to descend to name-calling. What part of "comment on the content, not the contributor" is problematic? -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:25, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Spot on, GTB. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:01, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

And yet I have had no qualms about it in the past, and will not in the future. If a spade doesn't want to be called one, then they should stop digging themselves into a hole, rather than be mollycoddled by "tsk tsk don't call him that" horseshit. Tarc (talk) 02:53, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

It's not about mollycoddling at all; it's about being effective. You can't change human nature, so you have one of two choices: "Call a spade" and be mired in shit, or refrain from name-calling, and get shit done. I know which one I prefer. YMMV. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:11, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

You may be under the misapprehension, Tarc, that refraining from name-calling has anything to do with sparing anyone's feelings. It has zero to do with that, and everything to do with cold-blooded, Machiavellian pragmatism. If you can show that calling people names is effective in the real world, then I'm ready to start using that strategy. I suspect you cannot. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:52, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Mollycoddling is exactly what it is about. Tarc (talk) 12:29, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Not for me it isn't. I suppose you can provide examples where "calling a spade a spade" has actually improved a situation? I'd like to see those, because I've never seen one before. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:50, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

The other editor on the Zeitgeist Talk Page and I resolved our initial conflict. That aside however, whether something is "obvious" is subjective, as people miss ostensibly obvious things all the time, and this would certainly apply to newbies. In any event, Wikipedia is not a forum for humor, nor do I see what originality and article content have to do with this.

One other thing: I wanted to invite participation from as wide a swath of people as possible, so I began a discussion on this matter at Talk:WP:Civility, and Jimmy Wales' talk page, when I should have started it in one place, and left a link at other pages directing editors to that discussion. I apologize for failing to do this.

Can we continue this discussion at Jimmy Wales' Talk Page? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 02:04, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

If you don't like the page, go to MfD. There are obviously divergent opinions on the place of humor in the project, and how coarse said humor should be, but Talk:Jimbo isn't going to cut it. Tarc (talk) 02:58, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean? Discussions on this can't take place there? Why not? As for MFD, I tried looking over that page, but I don't know which category of page this one falls into, which is necessary to list it.

Also, you say that you have no qualms about using the term, and have done so in the past. In your view, how is this consistent with WP:Civility, and commenting on content rather than the editor? Nightscream (talk) 03:13, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

To add to that question, how is it helpful? I've never seen a situation in which calling someone a name improved anything. Where are these useful acts of name-calling? -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:49, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

It is consistent with my view that AGF is not a suicide pact. When there is clear evidence of bad faith, you address the bad faith. When someone is being a dick, you address the fact that they are a dick. Pages and pages of AN/I and relate boards are covered with roundabout discussions about problematic users, 90% of which could be cut if people would simply get right to the point, i.e. "UserX is a dick, here's what he can do to stop being a dick". Smiple. Don't labor under the impression that I am seeking to convince you or win you over; this is an explanation of what I do. Tarc (talk) 12:29, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm suggesting here that what you do is less constructive than what you could do instead. I want to see examples of instances where name-calling is constructive and effective. Where are they? In my experience, name-calling prolongs and worsens conflicts, every time. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:51, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

This page is not telling people to call each other a dick. Yaris678 (talk) 11:12, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

This page enhances civility by telling people to "cease all dickery" rather than pretending to be civil while actually being rude. Jehochman ^Talk 12:12, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

The pith is, if one refers an editor to this essay, one has called them a d***. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:08, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Examples

If name-calling is actually a good idea, as I believe some are suggesting, then it should be easy to provide examples of situations where it worked, and was effective at ending conflict in a constructive manner. I've seen many examples to the contrary, and here's one. This really happened:

Editor A says something to Editor B on a talk page somewhere that isn't particular rude, nor particularly polite. Editor C, uninvolved in the situation, sees this and leaves a (totally misguided) civility warning on the talk page of Editor A. Being one who prides himself on his honesty and bluntness, Editor A replies to Editor C with, "fuck off, Troll."

Now, Editor C, having been told to fuck off, goes instead to WP:WQA and files a report against Editor A. In response, Editor A goes to WQA and responds to the complaint, and a long and unpleasant discussion ensues. At the end, nobody has learned anything, and everyone involved has wasted hours of their lives.

Another uninvolved Editor D notices the WQA thread, and points out that Editor A really created the situation by saying "fuck off, Troll", where simply ignoring the warning would have resulted in far less heat and static. Editor A claims that, being rational, he performs whatever action is most likely to result in the desired outcome: in this case, saying "fuck off" was deemed likely to result in an end to the conflict. Editor D asks Editor A how he could possibly believe that telling a civility-cop type "fuck off" would possibly turn out well, at which point Editor A says that he's not listening to any more "psycho-babble".

This illustrates the point I've been making above: Calling people names results in escalated conflicts, more heat, and less light. It fails to resolve any problem in a constructive manner. All it does is satisfy the personal feelings of the one doing the name-calling. Refraining from name-calling, and engaging instead in smart strategies, de-escalates conflict, and allows us to get back to work.

Thoughts? -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:04, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Name calling has never worked in my experience. This essay is a tool. It can be used well or badly. Don't blame the tool if the user does something stupid with it. This essay is here so that people can find it, read it, and hopefully improve their own behavior. It is not ever to be used for pointing out somebody else's deficiencies! Don't say to somebody, Hey, you are being mildly dickish, you really need to be a WP:GIANTDICK so we can ban you. No, instead we could say, Please don't WP:GAME the rules. If you continue testing limits you're going to get a bad outcome, or something like that. Jehochman ^Talk 13:13, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Name-calling is not acceptable, and pages like this only gives fodder to users who may hope to circumvent WP:Civility. They can cite this page as a veiled way to call another user a "dick", and they are criticized for this, or accused of violating Civlity, they can just say, "Hey, it's in the project namespace!". This page and all like it, such as Wikipedia:Competence is required, need to be deleted. Essays that do not gain acceptance as policies or guidelines have no place in the project namespace. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nightscream (talk • contribs)

You already lost that debate. Tarc (talk) 14:18, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Tarc, can you provide an example of a situation where name-calling is helpful or productive? I'm not saying that you're claiming that, but in a few years, I've seen many advocate name-calling without anyone producing an example. I'm curious where the advantage is. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:00, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I can't speak for the targets, but the times over the years where I have called a dick a dick has certainly made me feel better. :) Tarc (talk) 00:11, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, that's a terrible use of the wiki. Terrible. Using our server space to vent your feelings, if it doesn't improve the encyclopedia, is disruptive. Our goal here is to get stuff done, not to feel better. If making yourself feel better has a reasonable chance of generating extra heat and static, then you shouldn't do it, and you may be blocked for it. Nobody can produce any advantage to name-calling other than a desire to vent and "feel better". That's totally irresponsible.

If you need to vent, do it offline, and come back here when you're ready to take a professional tone. -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:23, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh my goodness, stop with the BAWWWing; it was a joke. If you really want specific examples, I'm sorry, but I do not save my quotes in some sort of Hall of Fame textfile. I can rattle off a few indef'ed users who I am fairly certain I have said "you are being a dick right now, please stop", but given your current thin skin you may cry "OMG WP:NPA!!!" at me. Tarc (talk) 13:50, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

"Stop with the BAWWWing?" You're funny, but not when you tried to be. :D I have never fucking cried "OMG NPA" at anyone, and my skin is thicker than you can possibly imagine. You will never find an example of me complaining about being personally attacked on this wiki, or anywhere on the Internet. Anyone who "cries NPA" is "doing it wrong", as the saying goes. I don't accuse people of breaking behavior policies, because I'm smart enough to know that's fatuous and unhelpful.

You don't know what the hell you're talking about, if you think you know dick about me. Far from complaining, I was just pointing out that you're full of horseshit. Have a nice day, with your naïvete. Someday, you'll learn something; that'll be cool.

You will also never find any example of name-calling being helpful in any way, and if you keep using our servers to do it, you'll eventually be indef'ed. I'll be laughing. -GTBacchus^(talk) 07:45, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

The above is quite amusing, coming from an admin who was just yesterday blocked for inciviliy. :) Yes, you are complaining; quite loudly, in fact. And this fact remains as well...if someone acts egregiously dickish, then I will call him a dick, and link to either this or the main WP:DICK page. If there's something you wanna try to do about that, then you know where to find WP:WQA. Have a nice day. Tarc (talk) 14:51, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Name change

To avoid offending people's sensibilities, I propose changing the name of this page to Wikipedia:Please be a giant prick, so we can ban you. The definition of prick includes "to cause sharp emotional pain," or a person "who [is] stupid or irritating or ridiculous". These definitions seem to fit what the essay is saying. Hopefully this change will resolve concerns. Jehochman ^Talk 12:18, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, those aren't the definitions that will come (pun unintended) to mind when people read the title though; we're still quite a very phallic-centered society. And under that definition, IMO "prick" is more vulgar than "dick". Tarc (talk) 12:34, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

How about Wikipedia:Please be a major jerk, so we can ban you? Jehochman ^Talk 14:05, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I think it's fine the way it is. The MfD just snow-closed, and not all of the project's humor needs to be rated G. Tarc (talk) 13:21, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how humor has any place in WP as it is inherently POV. Also, if there was an MFD for this essay, I was not aware, and I have been following this page throughout the week. The Eskimo (talk) 18:42, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:MFD#Wikipedia:Please be a giant dick, so we can ban you. Still technically open, but there's been no calls to delete yet, and the nominator has evidently gone off in a bit of a huff, striking the nom and removing the MfD tag from the main page. Tarc (talk) 19:44, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Update: The nominator has unstruck the nomination, therefore I have restored the version of the page with the MfD tag. There is currently one "vote" for deletion and one to "userfy" and I am going to favor one or both of those options, so that makes three. Neutron (talk) 21:52, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Variation on a theme

There is, of course, also Wikipedia:I'm not a giant dick because you deserve it. Dickishness is often justified as being a mere reaction to something deserving of such treatment. Being a prick, jerk, or perhaps (another suggestion) ass is not quite the same, those are degrees of offensiveness and/or stupidity, whereas being a dick is a specific way of looking at the world and how it relates to one's self. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 22:08, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm bothered by the idea - and I realize, Vecrumba, that you're not claiming this - that people should be treated based on whether they "deserve" said treatment. Shouldn't we take actions based on the likely outcomes of those actions? That is, if someone "deserves" to be treated badly, but treating them badly will cause excess heat and turmoil, then is it better to give them what they deserve, or to avoid turmoil that can damage - or at least distract from - the project? I'm not comfortable with the idea that Wikipedia is a webhost for giving people "what they deserve" (in the mind of any passing editor). -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:17, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Move proposal

Since each form of mild dickery listed on this page is likely to eventually get one banned but only after a lot or notices, warnings, ANI threads, multiple blocks of increasing length, RFCs, RFARs and metric assloads of drama, I propose moving this essay to Wikipedia:Please be a giant dick, so we can ban you now. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 21:08, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Time to change the name of this page?

Is it time to change the name of this page to something less misogynistic? We have a problem with retaining female editors. Wouldn't it be nice to improve the atmosphere so that females would feel more welcomed? Jehochman ^Talk 02:52, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I disagree; this is not anything to do with offending female editors. You should not have done this without waiting for others to comment. See my comment below. Prhartcom (talk) 21:17, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

For the record: PennJilletteFan moved the title so that "jerk" is in place of "dick." Also for the record: As a female editor, I could not care less that "dick" was used for this humor page or for WP:Dick before it was censored to have "jerk" in place of "dick. In my opinion, the censoring is unneeded in both cases. I also prefer the "dick" expression, for reasons editors made when trying to keep the WP:Dick title. Stating that a person is being a dick hits the right note, a different note than stating that a person is being a jerk. And it's a note that I like, given the many dicks at this site. Flyer22 (talk) 12:13, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I've reverted that; there's no consensus for a move William M. Connolley (talk) 13:10, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

That's right; there absolutely isn't; this humour page has the perfect name. Thank-you, William M. Connolley. Prhartcom (talk) 17:06, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

You'd need to be a total jerk to think otherwise William M. Connolley (talk) 21:22, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Prude or no sense of humor?

User:Jehochman, Please reverse what you have done to this essay. I am assuming this page caught your eye only because I just added it to the essay template? Your edit has completely punctured the air out of quite an old and established essay for no good reason. Prhartcom (talk) 21:14, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

I, too, see no consensus for this move. Perhaps we can move it to "Please be a giant Jehochman, so we can ban you" instead? Bring back the old name William M. Connolley (talk) 21:34, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

this move was parallel to what was done at meta. Confirm that you are appraised and then let me know why we should use a different pattern. Why should we risk accusations of sexual harassment for having a crude joke of a page? Priorities need to be kept straight. Jehochman ^Talk 22:06, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

The move shows no sense for tradition. (Trying to stay seriuz.) I am a woman who enjoys playing with words. Bring back the old name. What on earth is a jerk? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:19, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but meta changed the name of the underlying page, killing the joke. If you want to revert me, go ahead. I did my best; my conscience is clear. Jehochman ^Talk 22:24, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

I have reverted you. Sorry. I don't understand the meta point, BTW William M. Connolley (talk) 22:55, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

m:Don't be a dick was moved to m:Don't be a jerk. The WP:GIANTDICK is now out of sync with the thing it's parodying. Jehochman ^Talk 23:38, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

My Macmillan Dictionary of American Slang defines jerk as a "contemptible and obnoxious person, esp. a man; =ASSHOLE, BASTARD". I think this meaning of the word is uncommon on the eastern side of the Pond. I don't see anything misogynistic about either word. If anything, both words imply (by usage and derivation) that the undesirable behaviour described is typically male. --Boson (talk) 01:21, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Amen!--Wuerzele (talk) 08:41, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank-you, William M. Connolley, and thanks especially to Gerda Arendt, one of the most respected women I know editing Wikipedia. Moral: If one is offended, don't claim to be offended on behalf of someone else. Prhartcom (talk) 13:51, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Using jerk instead of dick is "casting out devils by Beelzebub". The political correct (femalized) version would be douchebage bzw. You don't have to be always in line with Judith Butler to agree that a male swear word (and the image it conveys) can be used used on any human being, without being specific about gender. Serten II (talk) 15:53, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

I support Jehochman's change. The current 'dick' essay says more about its authors than it does about its purported subject. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 01:26, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

User talk:Tharthan has just changed every occurrence of the word "dick" to the word "jerk". I have reverted this attempt. Prhartcom (talk) 06:06, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

A lack of assumption of good faith is strong with this one, I see. Also, I didn't actually change every occurrence of the word, especially on this page. If you actually checked my edit. But, of course, you didn't because you seem to love assuming things. Shame, really. If you want to see what I actually did, look back at my edit to this page (not the talk page).

More to the point, I have no issue with this page being titled what it is.

Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 06:14, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I mentioned this in the #Time to change the name of this page? thread above... For the record: PennJilletteFan moved the title so that "jerk" is in place of "dick." Also for the record: As a female editor, I could not care less that "dick" was used for this humor page or for WP:Dick before it was censored to have "jerk" in place of "dick. In my opinion, the censoring is unneeded in both cases. I also prefer the "dick" expression, for reasons editors made when trying to keep the WP:Dick title. Stating that a person is being a dick hits the right note, a different note than stating that a person is being a jerk. And it's a note that I like, given the many dicks at this site. Flyer22 (talk) 12:13, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Hear, hear! Thanks for this valuable comment, Flyer22. (And sorry about all the dicks around here. There's not all that many, but the few that exist do seem to move around a lot.) Prhartcom (talk) 17:06, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Stupid think

I know this is a humor page but wikipedia rules said that those word shouldn't be use so what's the point of this? Punetor i Rregullt5 (talk) 10:23, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

You haven't been editing in contentious topics much, have you? 'Mild dickery' going without bans or even warnings is pretty much the name of the game for disputes over there. Donkey Hot-day (talk) 03:59, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Edit warring

"Revert 300 times a day against your opponents in an edit war (ew!)."

Just wondering, have any users actually done that, or do they get blocked by the WP:ABUSEFILTER most of the time? Woshiyiweizhongguoren (🇨🇳) 18:37, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

what is with the funny coloured name 120.21.217.149 (talk) 09:17, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

"Nonsense or complete sentences" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Nonsense or complete sentences. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 1#Nonsense or complete sentences until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 09:29, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

How do you delete images randomly?

"BGD: Keep deleting images randomly, creating a large number of redlinks."

But how can you ensure truly random deletion? Dice rolls are subject to imperfections in the dice. Random number generators are pseudorandom? Maybe not? The environment is biased. I'm just not sure how. Initial conditions are biased, by the inital conditions.

Fearless lede'r (talk) 04:15, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

New Userbox for y'all:

This user wants you to be a giant dick so they can ban you.

The template is {{User giant dick}} InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 04:12, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

please be a dick

thank you, love from australia . 120.21.217.149 (talk) 09:17, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

also preferably a giant one. thanks in advance, aussie guy 120.21.217.149 (talk) 10:34, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

New image?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/may/01/canada-phallic-iceberg-photo-newfoundland-dildo is good... William M. Connolley (talk) 10:05, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

WP:NFCCP — to my understanding, his image is copyrighted. Heavy Water (talk • contribs) 03:18, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Correct; the Richard Nixon joke has been generally accepted by the Wikipedia community for a while so no need to replace, and it complies with NFCCP and Commons since works by the federal government are in the public domain. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 15:43, 26 May 2023 (UTC)