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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Wikipedia humor 

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

message: * 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)
thread_title:  errr 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I like the missile too.  Perhaps we can take this matter to mediation? Jehochman Talk 05:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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 () 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)
replies: text: After rereading the article and disussion. Please put it back. SYSS Mouse (talk) 17:54, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: See Watergate.  Did you know that his campaigns used the slogan "They can't lick our Dick!" image (Lick means beat in American English). Jehochman Talk 04:22, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Agreed: Added to WP:LAME. SYSS Mouse (talk) 16:13, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  I am removing the pictures 

message: 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)
thread_title: Passive aggressive essays on wikipedia?

message: 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)
replies: text: Sometimes I wonder did we make the warning on top of the page big enough... Admiral Norton (talk) 21:19, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Thanks REALLY! 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Image Wars 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: "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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: RFC

message: 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)
thread_title:  Replace the main page... 

message: :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)
thread_title:  DTFDN 

message: This is very inappropriate. This makes us look bad. --Marshall T. Williams (talk) 01:08, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Compared to what? Binksternet (talk) 01:30, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Compared to the rest of Wikipedia. --How may I serve you? Marshall Williams2 01:36, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Dissaproval 

message: Kudos to the writers. Enigmamsg 03:43, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Much appreciated 

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

text: Font is correct in this sense. ÷seresin 03:59, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well since "font" and "fount" are synonyms here, it makes no difference does it? Lexicografía (talk) 22:06, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "font of knowledge" 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Be civil 

message: I dunno, this seems like a fairly important community guideline to me! Lexicografía (talk) 22:05, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "has not, has never been, nor will ever be" 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  How about Wikipedia:Please be a major jerk, so we can ban you?  Jehochman Talk 14:05, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Name change 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Variation on a theme 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Move proposal 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  I've reverted that; there's no consensus for a move William M. Connolley (talk) 13:10, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  You'd need to be a total jerk to think otherwise William M. Connolley (talk) 21:22, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time to change the name of this page? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Stupid think 

message: "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)
replies: text: what is with the funny coloured name 120.21.217.149 (talk) 09:17, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit warring 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "Nonsense or complete sentences" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: "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)
thread_title:  How do you delete images randomly? 

message: The template is  InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 04:12, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Userbox for y'all: 

message: thank you, love from australia . 120.21.217.149 (talk) 09:17, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: also preferably a giant one. thanks in advance, aussie guy 120.21.217.149 (talk) 10:34, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  please be a dick 

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