The WP:SARCASM essay is just humor, like it says at the top. Seriously, go ahead and use sarcasm! Retroactive sarcasm ("Why are you so upset? You took me seriously? Ha ha! I was just joking!") is especially useful.
Hmmm. Thank you for the attention, and it's a good point in itself, but… perhaps not as part of an optimist's guide. Where's the optimism? Might be more of a useful item in a "Good advice for Wikipedia contributors" or "How to get on with other editors" guide? Plus, since this guide is imbued with sarcasm, I'd rather not chase my own tail in quite that way, it makes me dizzy. Feel free to suggest further. Bishonen | talk 14:26, 17 May 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Darn you and your wanting content to be within the declared scope! What kind of encyclopedia would we end up with if everyone followed that rule? And don't you know WP:IAR is a pillar? ... I'm sure I'll come up with a good one. Zad68 19:35, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[Darwinbish starts to plan her own "Bad advice for Wikipedia contributors" and "How to get on other editors' nerves".] Hehe. Off to my evil smithy I go! darwinbishBITE☠ 20:19, 17 May 2013 (UTC).[reply]
I've never seen used in WP discussions (maybe it's been), but I've always thought the enforcer "In the final analysis [...]" was questionable (what? - I can't think about it more and offer improvement!?), so I'd add it, namely: The facts are the facts, It's that simple, Simple as that, In the final analysis, and Period. Thanks for consider, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 01:38, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
