Talk:Friends of gays should not be allowed to edit articles

TEST

Pardon me while I practice typing here using my gay friend's enormous penis.

Why the hell are you doing that?

Because I want to see if it will work.

Why don't we implemment some of these suggestions?

Proposal: In the recent changes list, if an edit trips one of the following conditions then it will appear in red.

• Any character is repeated 4 times or more (e.g. "aaaa")
• The word "test" appears
• The word "gay" appears
• If an entry that was at least 3kb before the edit, lost half or more of its size.

- Lotsofissues

This page is merely a parody of other unwiki proposals to restrict access to Wikipedia. It's a fun joke, and I've tried to make sure it doesn't come across as homophobic. That said, it has a good chance to attract the enthusiastic attention of the same [mouthbreathers] it makes fun of. If that's the case, I'd like to see it deleted. --Evan 23:33, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Well at first I thought this was a proposal is disallow my friends to edit. But then I read the page and got the joke. :) --mav 05:12, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I like that idea about flagging edits like that so they stick out in recentchanges. --22:20, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Who wrote this nonsense? It's beautiful! Evan? Never heard of you. No matter: you are instantly evelated to my "always read what this person writes, he's good" list. Tannin - 05:05, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Aw, shucks. B-) --Evan 20:33, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)

And I'm afraid i would have to agree. - en:user:Celestianpower

Restricting the flamboyant typing students from using more than 4 instances of a certain character in a row is most likely to lead to discrimination of friends of fat people who need to state the size of their friends' clothing out loud - not to mention friends of individuals with xxxxl penises. --anon. coward.

---

All I can say about this revision is: Knock it off, Mom! You're embarassing me! --Evan 20:33, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)

---

Also: the note about Wikipedia running out of letters cracked me up. ---Evan 20:49, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)

likewise 24.190.96.44 14:35, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

---

I do not think that peple shud hav to sine that leter to rite on here. Insted you shud make the note on the top more clearer to make ser you do not do such stuf. It is OK if you ar lerning how to type, or ar curius, or gay or no sumbudy gay, just make ser thay do not rite about it on the Wikipedia. And that shud be a note on the top insted, not a leter you hav to sine to do it.

---

I moved the following comments from the article : chocolateboy 13:42, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

On a less parodic note- there are some more fine-grained Anti-vandalism ideas around ;-) - Gwicke 01:06, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Opportunist! --Evan 08:07, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)

=>;-)) Anthere

There's a fine line between trolling and humor, and you have both feet firmly over that line (not sure which side! ;-) --Ed Poor

Who cares which side, we're all enjoying ourselves!

---

Note that there are exactly zero vandalism instances that say, "I AM VERY GAY"

I'd just like to say that this edit apparently proves this observation false. Raul654 08:26, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

As does this one. Raul654 21:00, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Also this. Professor Fiendish 05:44, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, I've changed "exactly zero" to "almost no", so this should be more accurate now. ;) —Lowellian (talk)[[]] 08:26, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)

---

One thing I would like to see happen is possibly having checks on all submitted articles to see what kind of changes were done. Say, a huge article gets written down to 10 words or less it would automatically get rejected as an edit. just a suggestion --AppleBoy 04:09, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The trouble with a sanity check like this is it would reject the turning of a page into a redirect after it was merged with another. Boffy b 20:59, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

---

maybe one solution would be to open a typing school as part of wikiversity... The bellman 02:30, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

---

Why not simplify this rubbish stuff to "those who have any friends at all are not allowed to edit"? :p I would easily qualify. :-) 217.171.129.72 13:38, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

---

Why is this here?

It only refers to Wikipedia - why isn't it there? 210.50.25.36

happy?

Doesn't gay mean happy? Gerrit 15:51, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

I expect you know English as a foreign language :). Gay used to mean happy, but now that use is archaic. It now means w:en:homosexual. R3m0t 21:26, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

Let's now make it the eighth word you can never say on TV. Professor Fiendish 05:45, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

But that would ban The Flintstones! 217.254.176.9 08:53, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

LOOK AT THIS PAGE

This title cannont be real i have no ide where to comment on this

Confusion

I'm confused, is this a discussion?

No, it's a joke. Hence the Category:Humor tag. Angela

I don't see the point in this.

If this is supposed to be a real discussion, please change the title to sometime less offensive. There are other types of vandalism, as listed on the article, so the title shouldn't refer to just the last given source of it.

When I first saw the title I was actually a bit shocked and thought the title itself might be a result of vandalsim. But having read the article, I must say that it's very witty, and the title is entirely justified by the context. DrKinsey 17:53, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Or, if this is supposed to be a joke, I can only wish the creator would show some maturity and compassion. Ryan 08:57, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

It's a rather amusing tongue-in-cheek joke (and a rather old one at that). Raul654 22:03, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Wait, so this guy is suggesting that if it's a real discussion to ban bad typists, curious people, and friends of gays, that's peachy-keen as long as they change the title. But if it's a joke, he wishes the creator would show some maturity and compassion? I'm sorry sir, did you mean to reverse those? Because your priorities seem pretty backwards to me. --66.18.231.70 15:24, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

There isn't a point, it is satire. Laugh and move on.

And when I first saw the title, I thought, "Oh, goody, something funny to read!" And sure enough, I was right. Some personality types just do not understand certain types of humor. As long as they keep this problem to themselves and don't flaunt it, by trying to squelch everybody else's good laugh, I have no problem. --Queezbo 20:23, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

teh funny.

This is one of the funniest post in the Humour cat, very clever too... kudos to the writers =D. - 202.7.176.134 01:11, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it's just superb :-D --194.226.235.251 15:08, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

This is the best thing I have ever seen on a wiki. —Frungi 03:23, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Test

Testing testing 1, 2, 3...

Does this thing actually work??

Hy! Thr must b a vandal diting, bcaus Mta sms to hav run out of 's!

Whoops

Re: this edit summary - stupid firefox autocomplete. Raul654 07:48, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Borgx, this is a humor page. Anthere 14:38, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

ROTFLMAO!!!

I was led to this page via a wikipedia link, and couldn't stop laughing for ten minutes after I read it! :D 139.55.52.11 03:13, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Humour Notice

I felt that too many people weren't bothering to read the whole article and see that italic note at the bottom, so I added a (humourous) explanation at the top of the talk page. That should cut down on the number of confusions. -Jetman123 09:17, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

In the process ruining a lot of the humor in a very funny article. People who don't have a sense of humor won't be helped by the notation that this is a joke. People who do have one, would rather not be told it's going to be funny. Sbharris 03:59, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Refutation of the principle

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thomas_Becket&diff=47812158&oldid=47810847. Sam Korn 15:48, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Note that, while the article claims gays and lesbians are "exceptionally good Wikipedia contributors," it makes no such assumption in regards to LESBIONs.

Indeed, proud, vandalising LESBIONs have been known to run rampant many a time. 69.211.125.101 19:03, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Look further up this page at my comments from way back in July 2004 - "I'd just like to say that this edit apparently proves this observation false" Raul654 00:21, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Well it was changed to almost none since then. And to be fair, it is fairly accurate there are very few people who feel the need to announce their sexual orientantion via vandalism but a lot of people who feel the need to annouce their friend's/teachers's/whoever's. This one [1] is a poor e.g. since it sounds like disruption to prove a point to me :-P Indeed I strongly suspect the ED example is a friend who has poor English skills and doesn't know they shouldn't write in the first person if they're referring to a friend not themselves... So we only have one good e.g. so far :-P Nil Einne 19:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Not particularly sure what I was thinking when I wrote the above. The more likely explaination is that the poster isn't ED but has decent English skills and is pretending to be ED hence the first person. Nil Einne 18:50, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Links to edit summaries?

Does anyone think this page would be improved by adding links to edit summaries supporting its arguments? (Not counting ones from this page, that would be a bit silly.) —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 05:50, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

---

In addition, vandalism is kinda gay. (User: J. Th. on swedish wikipedia)

Even if all vandalism enjoyed romantic exchanges with the opposite sex, I don't believe that its sexual orientation determines its quality. 66.82.9.76 22:01, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Like to point out

I absolutely approve of the title of this page. -b 00:08, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Like to point out

If it's meant to be funny, it fails miserably. -71.224.12.181 16:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if you noticed this, but not everyone in the world shares the same sense of humour. Sorry about that, mate, but a lot of people actually do think this article is funny, myself included. 99.243.164.126 17:40, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Good one!

Note that there are almost no vandalism instances that say, "I AM VERY GAY" or "I, Anita Flugelhorn, appreciate a good roll in the hay every once in a while with a member of my own sex." It can be inferred that gays and lesbians are exceptionally good Wikipedia contributors, and only some of their very proud but misguided acquaintances feel the need to broadcast their friends' sexual orientation.

I loved this part. :) Congrats to whoever wrote this article, it's very funny! Raystorm in en.wikipedia 15:29, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

This is so not true!!! --Anita Flügelhorn 05:40, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

More appropriate places

There are joke wiki and ones completely devoted to satire. This probably isn't good enough to go on most of them. Personally, I don't think it belongs in this wiki. I understand the desire to satire stupid users and vandals, but it lowers the quality of the site. However, I'll let those of you who are more active contributors decide. --CocoaZen 17:52, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Humornotguideline

The {{Humornotguideline}} at the head of the article makes this page much less funny. I've left the template but moved it to the very bottom of the page. —Benjamin Mako Hill 19:45, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I very much agree. I'm going to kill it again. Sbharris 04:00, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

dig it

w:WP:LGBT is linking to this now.[2] Please make sure you drop a notice to w:WT:LGBT if there is ever a deletion discussion on this. Coelacan 06:15, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

It's thanks to that link that I read this essay. It is hilarious! I'm amazed at the humor-challenged individuals who don't get it. Sad for them. Thanks Coelacan, or whoever added the link to w:WP:LGBT and thanks to Evan for composing it! Aleta 02:54, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Ha Ha Ha

Very funny! Now what are we going to do about the vandals? --Chris ^Grant 10:21, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

One sort of vandalists is missing

I really liked this article, but one sort of vandalists is still missing. The vandalists who makes funny edits, like this. //Moralist 17:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

for those of you who have some foreign language as your mothertongue, and thus have been wondering for the last year and a half what the "funny edit" in the diff. linked by Moralist here is really about - despair no more and quit the Swedish class you've signed on to - here is the Answer: Someone replaced the entry for Earth at Swedish wikipedia with the phrase Mostly harmless. Finn Rindahl 11:24, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

gays do edit

look [3] there are edits by gays. Does this page need to be updated? 147.161.1.25 16:43, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Brilliant

I wish some people would learn to appreciate humour. This actually reminds me of the poster for Wadham College's Queer Bop - "Homophobia is Gay!"

Isnt that an insult to people who are actually gay i mean what if i said that i was gay which im not and started using wikipedia to find another women or men so i could tell them some personal info and then they could come over my house to do some buisness ???

wow, that was hilarious

well, i just said it all with the title--68.157.23.56 00:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree! The person who wrote the proposal is an absolute brilliant!

Cheers mate!

Aua 10:19, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Problem with this proposal

I read this proposal with interest, and I can see its potential benefits (even though I, a self acknowledged acquaintance of homosexuals, would have to stop editing). However, there is a faulty assumption. It is stated that no-one is proclaiming their own homosexuality, but as WP:STYLE [4] discourages the use of the first person in articles I would say it's possible, even likely, that many people are merely using the third person, as should be expected in an encyclopaedia. en:User:AlmostReadytoFly

Wow

I'm amazed they let this article stay up for longer than 5 seconds. :P --NightKev 22:04, 13 February 2008 (GMT-8 / UTC-8)

Get rid of 3 new sections

Cut it back to the original five categories of vandals. Much funnier that way. Of course the essay leaves a lot of vandals out. That's a good thing. 208.120.198.119 00:11, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Meta Critique

This page is bad and you should feel bad.

I feel rather well, thanks. --Dweller 12:01, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

"Poop"

I laugh every time I see this page, but do feel that "poop" vandals are now so common on English Wikipedia at any rate, that they may be deserving their own subcategorisation. --Dweller 14:46, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

This is true. Perhaps we need new rules to keep out scatologists, both professional and amateur. Fishal 12:23, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

This joke has five sections, not four, and I think we should make it six.

At the bottom of the page, it is mentioned that there are four sections of this apparent "proposal," but unless you guys have some special system of counting, then there are actually five. Also, why not add a section covering "Wiki-haters" that are against Wikis for reasons such as their reliability (people who think that the fact that they can be edited makes them untrustable), people who are angry 'cause they (or one of their friends) got blocked or banned, and people who get mad 'cause they disagree with consensus on a Wiki? GO-PCHS-NJROTC from Wikipedia 67.233.7.159 22:00, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Uhm... and this?

What about the people, that - uhm... how can I describe it?

It seems to be some kind of tourette-syndrome (my english isn't perfect), but not the ordinary one like:

• "FUCK!FUCK!FUCK!"
• "ASSHOLE!"
• "Dude, Rudolph, you're a NAMES!"

It is more complicated. So that you can understand me, I'd like to begin with my hypothesis: While producing some kinds of information in wikipedia, people with ... THAT syndrome get to start thinking about other subjects. And then they have to write it. And within that we can read:

• "Mineral water is usually not used to flavour." (Subject: to flavour)
• "The child blow-dries the umbrella so that it is dry." (Subject: Child)
• "Even if the violin didn't change much since it's beginnings, there have been many tries of artistic and technical reforms" (Subject: Flagellates)

What about that folks?

Or maybe redirecting the Main Page to w:Leck mir den Arsch fein recht schön sauber. Professor Fiendish 05:47, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

How about another group?

The opposite of the critics, the "this __________ is the best EVAR! i love this ________!" editors? Umrguy42 15:44, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

German version

There's a German version (intentionally poorly translated) in my userspace...here! Protactinium-231 14:33, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

funny!

This article is so funny I had to suppress my laughter because I am at work. Thanks for the laugh. This page should not be deleted simply because it describes vandals to a T. Hmm, does posting this make me a vandal?

HAHA

Best.. thing.. ever... --70.169.247.162 19:30, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

amusing maybe 6 out of 10

as suggested within this article, while deletion of this article isn't called for, expansion of its humor quotient would be encouraged, such that the apparently serious articality is preserved while the humor's boosted too. Good mid-lifecycle stage right now.

Go for an 11 or a metrosexual 00!

Pandelver 21:45, 24 October 2010 (UTC) ~ friend of friend of fish avoiding evolution into lesbians and penises

Comments

Ultra-strong support. Bob the Wikipedian 06:09, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia to Wikimedia

While all of us have all of our lives revolving around WP, any complaint to changing the bulk of the Wikipedia references to Wikimedia, just to make it more generic to the sites? billinghurst sDrewth 10:32, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Tag At The Bottom

Why is the tag at the bottom?199.126.224.245 00:48, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Friends_of_gays_should_not_be_allowed_to_edit_articles&action=historysubmit&diff=2015825&oldid=1999184 --Nemo 08:48, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Where? I'm not seeing any archives where this discussion took place. Surely the tag should be at the top so people know immediately it's intended to be humorous? Perhaps instead of linking to a diff that gives further advice perhaps you could actually answer the question? Rehevkor 13:55, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

First gay vandal ever seen

As the article cleverly points, a lot of vandals are proud friends of gays, but they usually aren't friends of gays themselves. I just noticed the first proud gay vandal I've ever seen: [5]. I suppose this gay guy expects his mother to check recent changes in catalan Wikipedia and to know his IP adress.--Pere prlpz 19:48, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

First phrasing like that which I've seen, as well. But I have a very different interpretation of the intent of this visigoth. The visigoth themselves may, or may not, have been gay. Merely because they state it as a fact^{[citation needed]} in the prose of their edit, does not therefore make it true, of course.

semantic analysis indicates that the vandal's sexuality is indeterminate in terms of the truth-value of their utterances
Consider the visigoths who speak of their phallus humongous, or those that say wikipedia is bad because they can edit it. Are those indubitably true? "Hi mom. I have to admit that I am gay." The visigoth in question was geoIP-located in central Germany, where the Catalan language of Spain is uncommon, and besides, they wrote in colloquial Americanized English. It seems unlikely their real-life mother (even visigoths have them! I swear!) was a known addict of the Recent Changes page on the Catalan wikipedia, who happened to also speak Anglais. Furthermore, the vandalism was a page-wipe, and thus was auto-reverted in just a few seconds by a boht. Revisió de 19:39, 11 feb 2011 (modifica) (desfés) visigoth -- IP withheld to protect the guilty Revisió de 19:39, 11 feb 2011 (modifica) (desfés) BotReversor The page which was wiped above was the Catalan refdesk/helpdesk/teahouse/similar (sorry... my Spanish is awful and my Catalan non-existent... machine translation says "inquiries desk" or maybe "tour query"). Conceivably, therefore, one might assume -- if one were assuming that the intent was to inform the visigoth's actual real-life mother of something -- that perhaps the mother staffed the Catalan wiki-helpdesk. Revisió de 19:40, 11 feb 2011 (modifica) (desfés) visigoth -- IP withheld to protect the guilty Revisió de 20:55, 11 feb 2011 (modifica) (desfés) Wutsje However, the next event seems to discount that theory. About a minute or so after the boht reverted the visigoth's helpdesk wipe, the same visigoth put the exact same text into another page of Catalan wikipedia: the talkpage of the boht which had just reverted their pageblank of the Catalan helpdesk! It seems the bot was unable to protect itself from such depredations, and so the sentence stays web-visible for about an hour-and-a-quarter, until User:Wutsje noticed the trouble, and fixed it.   In other words, neither edit was composed in the language people reading the wiki were most likely to speak, and neither edit was in mainspace. The first edit wiped the helpdesk queue, but was likely reverted before any human noticed. The second edit wiped a boht's talkpage, and was noticed by one single editor (presumably the bohtmaster?) about 75 minutes later. My hypothesis is that this visigoth was actually putting the message in as a *trolling* message, not as a prideful message. They were wiping the helpdesk/refdesk/teahouse, because that is a place that beginning readers and editors would likely see, and they were hoping to fool some of the moms that might be visiting that page, expecting human contact, into seeing the English message, and either knowing what it meant, or asking someone to translate if for them, and finding out thataway.   Now, in practice, the boht saved the day, and it seems reasonably certain that no helpdesk 'customers' actually ever saw the message at all. The visigoth, refreshing the page and noticing that their trolling-trick had been thwarted, clicked on the edit-history to see who had thwarted them, clicked on the talk-button of BotReversor, and then put the trolling-message *there* instead of at the refdesk. Methinks this last move was purely done out of spite; however, I suppose it is non inconceivable that BotReversor was actually this visigoth's mom, or at least, that the visigoth perceived such to be true.

  TLDR: this example, while somewhat fascinating as an instance where a visigoth was trying to troll in a mildly intricate fashion, in addition to simply trying to vandalize something by pageblanking, does not seem to be a counterexample to typical visigoth behavior patterns. We don't actually know whether or not this particular visigoth was gay. But that is not the point: since they were arguably *not* speaking to their actual mom, it becomes vastly more likely that *both* the first sentence, and also the *second* sentence, were in fact falsehoods, at least, in-universe falsehoods. If the visigoth personally was gay, or was not gay, is beside the point: they were not speaking as nor for themselves when they wrote "hi mom" and thus it is only reasonable to say they were not speaking as-nor-for-themselves when they next wrote "I have to admit that I'm gay." Rather, they were voicing the words of a persona, in this case, their trolling-persona, who needless to say does not exist, except perhaps as the visigoth's imaginary friend. In this way, they are no different than visigoths that use the second-person when speaking of others. QED. Hope this helps. — 74.192.84.101 02:28, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Finally! A "Humor" Template!

Finally, no more unneeded page deletions... Coming from a Wikia artist and a Minepedia editor. Btw, how do I convince my friends and sister that Wikipedia (or, unknowing to them, wikis in general) isn't that bad? 67.84.83.106 02:32, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I was unmoved by the idea of Wikipedia until I wondered what made an antimicrobial pen "antimicrobial"...and thus the antimicrobial pen introduced me to Wikipedia. When your friends and sister ask a question and you've got an Internet connection handy, say "let me look that up on Wikipedia". Impress them with the speedy research and an accurate answer, and soon they may start using it themselves for quick questions. Bob the Wikipedian 01:59, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Well that certainly went as planned....Padenton (talk) 08:54, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Propose rename

Proposed new name: FILL-IN-THE-BLANK should not be allowed to edit articles

Yes, that is meant to be the actual title.

Comments? Davidwr/talk 19:52, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

How nonsensical. --MF-W 20:46, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

I think the current title is fine. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:40, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree that a rename should be discussed - and it was clear from the deletion discussion that others agree it is a topic worth exploring. Perhaps a move request would be the most appropriate route? --Varnent (talk)^(COI) 04:50, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

A guy walks into a bar and shouts "anyone know where I can get a goddamn drink around here?"

This is a move request. Don't be silly. --MZMcBride (talk) 13:24, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

My suggestion was for one on the move requests page so it gets a larger audience than just the four of us - and I think you knew that.  :/ --Varnent (talk)^(COI) 17:21, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

It's long-standing practice across Wikimedia wikis to discuss a page's title on the associated talk page. The fact that four people (myself included) are using the talk page to discuss a move request makes this practice self-evident, surely. --MZMcBride (talk) 18:32, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Sure, we're discussing. Proposed conclusion after 2 days: not gonna fly, title stays. --Nemo 11:32, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I think you mean "Friends of FILL-IN-THE-BLANK should not be allowed to edit articles". WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:01, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

I get the impression that most people wanting a rename or the deletion of this page haven't bothered to actually read what the title (or it) says, because of omissions like the one you just pointed out. Ajraddatz (Talk) 17:22, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I think that is an unfair assumption based on the comments I read when the article came up for deletion. --Varnent (talk)^(COI) 18:32, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

It could well be. But when people are arguing that it is offensive to gay people, rather than what it actually is (horribly offensive to friends of gay people, like myself), it gives the impression that they are making stuff up. But this digresses from the point of this discussion - ultimately, I don't think a rename is needed, and appreciate the point that I perceive WhatamIdoing is trying to make. Ajraddatz (Talk) 20:44, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

No need to rename it, fine the way it is. Ajraddatz (Talk) 17:22, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Proposed sixth vandal category

• People who are special - Some people know that they are better than everybody else despite not receiving any mention in reliable sources, and they know they should be recognized in Wikimedia projects for their specialness (or their special needs). Some are special in specific ways, while others are just plain special. Some create special autobiographies, some add themselves to lists of notable individuals, some just randomly announce their specialness on random articles, and the most special of all do all of the above. While it is awesome that such special people have found the edit button, their edits are usually less than special and especially need to be undone immediately. Some special examples of special vandalism include:

• • "Brad is the 1337est h4xx0r in Russia"
  • "♥ Katryna ♥ is the bestest bestest cheerleader ever!"
  • "KAYLA IS THE PRETTIEST GIRL IN THE WHOLE WORLD!!!! <3 :-)"
  • "david pwns."

Since I see more and more of that category every day. PCHS-NJROTC (talk) 22:55, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

To be fair, I think this area may be covered already (by metonymy) in the "equipment" part; maybe we could add a specification to that category, ", or are otherwise extremely special"? Your observation and proposal demand great care: if you are right, I feel the plan proposed by the page will need some non-trivial adjustment for it to be up to the task of eliminating vandalism. Great care is needed for such additions if we don't want the proposal to look incoherent and superficial.

For instance, what sort of proof should be attached to the application letter to confirm the applicant's declaration of being totally inconspicuous? Does this pose any challenge to getting it notarized? In phase II, what aspects could the investigators focus on, considering that the ideal candidate will be completely invisible to the investigator's eye just like an ant in its underground refuge? --Nemo 08:52, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Interesting diff

Changes since the RFD: [6] PiRSquared17 (talk) 15:12, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

@PiRSquared17: The part about criticizing Wikipedia is more accurate than you think, see https://en.wikibooks.org/w/index.php?title=Electronics/Resistors&diff=prev&oldid=2581379. --Jakob (Scream about the things I've broken) 16:27, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I've seen many vandals like that. Some claim to be l33t h4x0rz because they can edit articles. PiRSquared17 (talk) 16:35, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Don't you know that the "just kidding" excuse makes anything offensive ok? 199.168.151.107 17:13, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

No, not really.--AldNonymous^Bicara? 17:15, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Title is inappropriate

I was reverted when I moved this over to a more appropriate title. The current title is "Friends of gays should not be allowed to edit articles" the text below it (all of it ) refers to vandals not friends of gays. I'd say the page needs to be retitled (moved ) to something more fitting like "Vandals should not be allowed to edit articles". Any one in agreement ? Necromonger Wekeepwhatwekill 16:33, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

No. This has been discussed many times before. It's a humorous page, and the title reflects that reality. Are you really trying to say that friends of gays are discriminated here? I obviously can't speak for everyone who has at least one gay friend, but I'm not feeling too hurt. Ajraddatz (talk) 17:52, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Edit button?

Where's the edit button? I thought I'd make the page a little bit funnier.--Nowa (talk) 02:48, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

It was determined that 100 % readers of this page have gay friends, so the edit button was disabled consistently with the proposal in the article. --Nemo 18:06, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Move this page?

I have an idea for a funnier title, that sums up who should not edit articles: Typing students, curious people, critics, certain men, cheerleaders, and friends of gays should not be allowed to edit articles. Does anyone agree? Ups and Downs (↕) 16:56, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Maybe but too long in my humble opinion. --Pierpao (talk) 23:32, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Too long, and also not funny. By the time I finish the long list, my sense of humour has been put to sleep. BethNaught (talk) 16:58, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Probably too long, I prefer the current title. --British Potato (talk) 10:40, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Good point. Maybe I should read Uncyclopedia:HTBFANJS. Ups and Downs (↕) 04:57, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Moved again

The title is inappropriate and we have at least four people (including myself), who have attempted to move this away from the prior title, we have one person who opposes. I'd say we have a consensus that the prior title was innapropiate and needs to stay gone. Wekeepwhatwekill 12:59, 17 July 2019 (UTC) <signature sanitised>

No, the talk page shows that there is no consensus for a move which essentially negates the whole essay. You can propose deletion if you think Meta should not host such humour. Nemo 10:24, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

I also don’t see the consensus here... and new title makes no sense as vandals are not allowed to edit anyway. Also, please do not add incorrect categories to this page.—Teles «Talk to me ˱_{C L @ S}˲» 23:36, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Regardless of where the title ends up, @Wekeepwhatwekill: it is not acceptable for you to continue to move the page without discussion. This is the third move that you have made now, so consider this your only warning. If you want to make a contentious edit or action, open a discussion and argue your point. As to the actual title of the page, I have argued in the past that it is not discriminatory, but in the spirit of providing a safe and inclusive space on Meta I would be OK with the page being renamed. I would prefer a name more connected with the content of the page; i.e. "Typing students should not be allowed to edit articles", rather than the current title which doesn't make much sense. – Ajraddatz (talk) 00:38, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

The current title is a response to Anonymous users should not be allowed to edit articles, i.e. a request of personal identification to prove certain personal characteristics before being able to edit. Other humorous titles are possible but until we find a suitable one and get consensus on it we'll keep the status quo. The status quo title is not offensive for anyone and certainly not for gays or friends of gays. Nemo 10:27, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

It is fine as it is.

Way better than misandric "No dicks/jerks", "No [insert another sexual organ here]", "No [insert your pet hate group]", with their implied reductio ad Hitlerum or ad masculinum, that currently exist in e.g. enwiki.

Zezen (talk) 13:24, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 July 2022

Hi there! Could you please change 'transgendered' in the "form letter" section of this page to 'transgender' as it more accurately reflects current-day terminology? Thanks! JuxtaposedJacob (talk) 15:08, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Done — xaosflux ^Talk 12:52, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Qualification or quality?

It seems to me that in the Conclusion section, the phrase "being gay is not a negative qualification" (emphasis mine) ought to read "being gay is not a negative quality". Catsmoke (talk) 10:02, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

@Catsmoke: Hmmm... no, I think it's intended as-is, though it may be relying on a relatively obscure form of the word "qualification".

The... sixth WordNet definition of the verb "qualify" is,

describe or portray the character or the qualities or peculiarities of; "You can characterize his behavior as that of an egotist"; "This poem can be characterized as a lament for a dead lover" [syn: {characterize}, {characterise}]

So in that sense, the relevant part of the sentence in question can be read as, "…being gay is not a negative way to describe someone." Which I think is contextually appropriate, especially given that it's being contrasted with "gay" as a "derogatory term".

"Qualification" probably could be swapped out for "characteristic", without substantially changing the meaning of the sentence. But IMHO, the current, slightly off-brand vocabulary is a better fit with the overall tone of the essay, as well as the sort of arguments it's parodying. FeRDNYC (talk) 03:29, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

@FeRDNYC: A good explication, if one trusts WordNet. I agree with you. —catsmoke ^talk 02:23, 16 October 2022 (UTC)