Wikipedia talk:Don't be a jerk

message: I've just protected the page to stop an incredibly lame edit war over shortcuts. All of you should know better. Discuss it here, or let it go. If I see further edit warring when the protection expires I will not hesitate to liberally hand out blocks to all involved parties. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:57, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, I'd say this was already settled like 6 hours ago, bro. Tarc (talk) 21:03, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Quite. The only incredibly lame thing round here seems to be Beeblebrox's understanding of edit warring. I'm sure there's some pertinent advice round here somewhere... Yomanganitalk 00:26, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It may have been settled, but you sir, danced right up to 3RR, and none of you even tried to discuss the matter. Ever hear of WP:BRD? I understand edit warring perfectly well thank you. Thanks for the personal attack though. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:13, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: At a stretch, there were two reverts in the past 24 hours (neither by me), probably because the discussion in the edit summaries seems to have been perfectly clear to everybody involved in editing. And if you think calling somebody's actions lame is a personal attack maybe you should revise your section title and opening remarks. Yomanganitalk 01:38, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a difference. I said the edit war was lame. You said my understanding of the edit warring policy was lame. One is a description of a situation. The other is a description of a personal trait. I didn't make it personal, you did. It takes a minimum of two persons to edit war, there were three of you changing the shortcuts repeatedly without trying to discuss on the talk page. We don't need that anywhere, be it in articles or in project space. Edit summaries are not a substitute for actual discussion. WP:AVOIDEDITWAR would be the relevant policy section should you care to review it. Here's a brief excerpt "Once it is clear that there is a dispute, avoid relying solely on edit summaries and discuss the matter on the article's talk page. The primary venue for discussing the dispute should be the article talk page." Pretty clear I should say. I think we're done here. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:56, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Arguing over semantics and trying to close out the conversation with an imperious statement? Nice. Still, I won't split hairs if you think your opening characterization of our actions is beyond reproach, and since you obviously have your own fixed ideas on how we should work it is pointless to continue discussing the recent editing. I think we're done here. Yomanganitalk 02:15, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we should all chill with a bit of spotted dick and call it a Christmas night. Tarc (talk) 01:54, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL, I see the pun there! 51.9.101.23 (talk) 09:34, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lame edit war 

message: The title has a bad word. I would like it to be moved. Lightning BOLT! (talk) 12:06, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: There are lots of bad words on the internet. Get over it. --Onorem (talk) 20:35, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kid appropriateness 

message: This should not be undone without consensus.  Also, in reading back through my old objections on this page, I'm rather in favor of softening the title and language, but that's really a discussion to be had on the meta talk page. Tarc (talk) 15:24, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you take a comparison of The one which the user added here and the one at Meta?? Tutelary (talk) 15:46, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirect to meta restored