Talk:wise guy
Connel, I advise you to make attempts and discussing your reversions especially when you revert all of my edits. Right now, I consider your behavior as nothing more than harassment and an attempt at causing issues and if it continues I will report it. As for my edit, it truly is the meaning of the word and a clearer definition. 67.53.130.69 00:42, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- Edit was no good; previous version was correct and clearer. Use of names in examples is not acceptable. Robert Ullmann 06:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Robert Ullmann reversions edit
Robert Ullmann, relying on comments like "edit was no good" and "the edit is damage" amounts to nothing but pointless attacks and incivility. I suggest you come up with something to explain your edits other than attacking edits as "damage". Uponsure98 15:12, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
- User "Uponsure98" is a known Wikipedia troll/vandal, community banned. Robert Ullmann 01:35, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
- Since he seems sincere and since the change isn't visibly vandalistic in nature, and since this isn't a one-time thing, wouldn't a better course of action be to RFV-sense his change? I honestly don't see anything wrong with it. Certainly we shouldn't ban people for life, people do change. Language Lover 02:19, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
- EDIT: To clarify, the "change that I don't see anything wrong with" is the current sense 1 ("One given to making...") which Uponsure et al added. I agree "Jane" doesn't belong in the example, however since that's a one-time thing it could be chalked up to not knowing better. Let's teach instead of condemn. Language Lover 02:22, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Gender edit
A user changed the example from a female person to a male person. Do we need citations or anything showing that a wise guy can also be a woman/girl? I think it's a good idea, I will work on it. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:38, 16 May 2010 (UTC)