Wikipedia talk:Silly Things

message: At one point (not recently I saw a version of Hung Jury which said that it was a jury composed of men with large penises. I reverted it immediately, but it might be of some interest to this article.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.210.74.215 (talk) 23:43, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hung Jury. 

message: Hi, sorry if the Talk page is the wrong place to submit these things, but I just thought this story was really funny:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Robert_Morse&type=revision&diff=721042502&oldid=721042465
Lovkal (talk) 19:34, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Silly gem I found while patrolling 

message: I removed certain external links, and mention of those websites, under this edit summary: "Remove mention of external collection, which defeats the point of freezing the local collection. If we advertise that future vandalism to articles may be immortalised, this can encourage it. It is immaterial whether the collection lives here or elsewhere". I stand by this.
My edit was undone using the default undo message, in flagrant violation of the instruction that states "If you are undoing an edit that is not vandalism, explain the reason in the edit summary. Do not use the default message only."
If you have a view on whether we should or should not advertise an external website where recently added vandalism may be immortalised, please discuss it here. If there is no discussion very soon, I will reinstate the edit that was undone without discussion.
Thank you.
--Money money tickle parsnip (talk) 06:53, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: This has probably been debated a lot, but I don't see it as particularly encouraging vandalism, no more than Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars encourages edit warring. Most vandalism I've come across is either unsubtle blanking or the insertion of low grade nonsense, and is hardly worthy of anything other than being reverted. Linking to a few external sites is hardly likely to affect things at all, in most likelihood. The contents of these sites are mainly historical anyway, and where moved off site when it was deemed to be inappropriate. I don't think we need to worry particularly. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 15:48, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  links to external sites 

message: Sam.L (123e443)  123e443 (talk) 01:21, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  And now for something completely different 

message: In the "Buying Chocolate" section of "More Best of BJAODN," the original editor (the person who wrote the nonsense, not the person who put the nonsense in BJAODN) wrote "When you are in prison, saying to other hardened criminals that you are inside for nicking a bar of chocolate could result in you bending over for the soap." (wikilink mine). While BJAODN is for keeping things that editors find ridiculous, often to laugh at how bad they are rather than how funny the actual joke made by the original editor was, including a joke about prison rape in a page for "silly things" seems a bit too far.
If anyone else agrees with removing the rape joke from "Buying Chocolate," there might be a copyright issue with removing one sentence rather than the entire thing?
Thank you for your consideration. QuietCicada (talk) 17:34, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not to be a killjoy, but should we really be keeping a section including a joke about prison rape in BJAODN?