Wikipedia talk:Don't-give-a-fuckism: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 23:27, 31 December 2006

Oh God... I wasn't expepecting that userbox.. I nearly fell out of my chair laughing. --The Prophet Wizard of the Cray on Cake 19:57, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quick poll

Support:

Give a fuck, but only by choice, and only when there's a stake. — David Spalding ^ta!k y@wp/_Contribs 01:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To me, it means not taking the actions of other users personally, and I'm all for that. -- weirdoactor ^t^|^c -- 05:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I support this article (for the most part). --Jfowler27 16:48, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Meh:

The Prophet Wizard of the Cray on Cake 20:03, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Could care less. T REX_speak 01:17, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't give a fuck. — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 23:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Whatever Ttiotsw 03:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rudeness

This page has to be renamed to reflect politeness.--10:09, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Who the fuck gives a fuck about fucking politeness? Besides, Wikipedia is not censored. oTHErONE _(Contribs) 06:43, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rewording indecent language is not censorship.--08:41, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

It was created as Wikipedia:Don't-give-a-fuckism and it will stay that way. oTHErONE _(Contribs) 09:39, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm fine with changing the name... but I think the "fuck" sort of embodies the entire idea behind the ism. But yeah... I don't really care. --The Prophet Wizard of the Cray on Cake 14:00, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm outraged and offended at the rudeness behind this article. PROD ahoy! ;D--WaltCip 23:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care how offended people are by the title, but it seems that the title could be more accurate. Don't-give-a-fuckism seems to be a title for sensationalism instead of accuracy. A more correct title would be Apathetic Philosophy or something along those lines. Don't-give-a-fuckism should be talked about inside the article (i.e. an alternate phrasing). I like the article, but I think it needs to be edited to sound like a serious article. --Jfowler27 16:48, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO it doesn't need to be censored (make the title more palatable to sensitivities) to be "serious." Its irreverence is the point. Readers who don't "get it" don't have to, 'cause we DGAF. See? But if the title is keeping the thing in a rut, maybe "Ambiable Apathy" or "Irreverent Apathy" (see my userbox mod below) is more your (plural) cuppa tea? David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 21:35, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it doesn't need to be censored, at least not simply because it offends people or uses course language. I'm starting to see that it might not hold the same weight or meaning if the title is changed. It felt inaccurate at first, but going through it again, the suggested apathy is obvious in the actual article and the creation of an ism for it is a fairly good idea. Don't-give-a-fuckism might ruffle a few stuffy people, but who gives a fuck. Right? --Jfowler27 07:33, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much... --The Prophet Wizard of the Cray on Cake 22:43, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Get up off your fucking soapbox

Change the name to reflect politeness, go shag a donkey. --Maxasus 15:41, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hahaha... how contradictory. ^_^ --The Prophet Wizard of the Cray on Cake 22:46, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like this essay and disagree with the PROD nomination. WP is not censored, is not a democracy. If you don't like the article, don't read it. — David Spalding ^ta!k y@wp/_Contribs 13:23, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please Expand Article

DO NOT DELETE THIS ARTICLE Oh My God. Best article I ever read here on Wikipedia. Surprised it has not been deleted yet. So funny, I cannot help but request for it to be expanded upon. Two thumbs up to the author. :) --The Jax 01:30, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, awright, I'll try to give a fuck sufficiently to add a little to The Little Essay That Couldn't (Give a Fuck). BTW, I love the userbox, but modified it a bit for my own use. David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 04:16, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DGAF

This user doesn't give a fuck and regards angry mastodons with amiable apathy.

WTF?

What kind of weak, sad article is this? Save your jokes for uncyclopedia. This is a real encyclopedia. Wolfdog 23:30, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not an article, it's an essay.
Are you saying apathy is a joke?
We know. oTHErONE _(Contribs) 23:27, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 54: / Line 54: @@
 What kind of weak, sad article is this? Save your jokes for uncyclopedia. This is a real encyclopedia. [[User:Wolfdog|Wolfdog]] 23:30, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
+# It's not an article, it's an essay.
+# Are you saying apathy is a joke?
+# We know.  o'''[[User:Otherone|THE]]'''r'''[[User Talk:Otherone|ONE]]''' <sub>([[Special:Contributions/Otherone|Contribs]])</sub> 23:27, 31 December 2006 (UTC)