Question: I innocently edited the title of the question, [I accidentally a whole fact table](https://stackoverflow.com/questions/6364780/i-accidentally-a-whole-fact-table). Apparently, this kind of grammar with no verb is [an internet meme](http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/i-accidentally). Because I was not familiar with said meme (which I do find funny and will probably use elsewhere), it suckered me and at least two others into [revising it](https://stackoverflow.com/posts/6364780/revisions).

When I edit a post, I spend my own valuable time to contribute to the quality of the site, with no other compensation than the fact that I am indefinably helping somehow (and, I suppose, serving the complaining OCD voices in my head that don't like to see poor grammar).

Anyway, while the title may be humorous, I'm not so sure it's the best kind of humor to have here, given how it's going to keep sucking people in to try to edit the question.

I also don't think locking the question is the right answer, either, because this won't prevent people from visiting the question to *try* to fix it.

What do you think?

Answer: 
One of the main goals of Stack Exchange is to be the first hit (or one of the first hits) for people trying to solve problems using Google searches. To that end, the clearer the title, the better.

In this case, it appears the author and a high rep user have decided that's not important and are entering into an edit war over a really lame title.

I don't think you're being trolled *per se*, but some people tend to forget there's a bigger picture and think you're just being a stick in the mud by changing a "funny" title. They also tend to forget that Stack Exchange is [collaboratively edited](https://stackoverflow.com/faq#editing), and that the original poster's intent does not outweigh the greater good.

Bringing it to the attention of the greater community is *A Good Thing*, but you can't fight and win every internet battle: if a user is so adamant about not accepting community input to the point where it's disruptive, flag it for a moderator so they can weigh in on it and move on.
Found some relevant discussions:

* [Stack Overflow: Where We Hate Fun](https://blog.stackoverflow.com/2010/01/stack-overflow-where-we-hate-fun/) - Jeff basically says *some* fun will be tolerated, as long as it's not disruptive. But **no** smiling.
* [Joke Questions: Please Refrain](https://blog.stackoverflow.com/2009/04/joke-questions-please-refrain/) - more problematic than just a joke in the title, but the issues are related
* [Should April Fools' Day questions be only asked on Meta?](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/45248/should-april-fools-day-questions-be-only-asked-on-meta)
* [Why was the "How to launch a missile" question deleted?](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/47929/why-was-the-how-to-launch-a-missile-question-deleted)

Personally I think if the question *body* had started with "I accidentally my whole table" it would've been just fine. And then if someone then commented "Sounds dangerous" that'd be fine to. But question titles are much more visible. In many cases they'll be people's first introduction to the site as they find questions through Google, so it's important that they are clear and accurate. In any case, getting into an edit war over any of these is just silly.

**Edit**: TheTXI makes a good point in [Should 'Hi', 'thanks', taglines, and salutations be removed from posts?](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/2950/should-hi-thanks-and-taglines-and-salutations-be-removed-from-posts/3021#3021). *Starting* with a joke uses up space in the question preview, making it a little harder for people to tell what it's about. I'm not sure that means you *can't* start with a joke, but it's worth considering. Even better would be to *end* the question with "I can't believe I accidentally the whole thing!".