Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 December 31

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

December 31[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on December 31, 2011

756*[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was speedy deleted per user request. Beeblebrox (talk) 07:59, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed this page in my contributions from four years ago. It probably breaks some rule against bad redirects and for that I apologize. But it was four years ago when I was immature, so please don't block me. Smartyllama (talk) 22:24, 31 December 2011 (UTC) Smartyllama (talk) 22:24, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Wikipedia:Don't be a dick[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. Max Semenik (talk) 09:59, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This page most likely going to be used for personal attacks. Also "Dick" itself is an insult and should not be used to describe wikipedians. Jamcad01 (talk) 06:37, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep meta has a page for this. It should be permanently fully protected though. 76.65.128.132 (talk) 07:27, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This discussion has been had many times, here and on meta; it isn't going anywhere. As the page says, "don't be a dick" is a fundamental rule of all social space, if more people followed that then there wouldn't be a need to point out their occasional dickishness. We also don't get rid of things just because they contain naughty words. This principle was upheld in 2006, and note the discussion for Wikipedia:GIANTDICK in 2010. Tarc (talk) 14:22, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As a Brit, I can't understand why DICK is going to result in overwhelming consensus to keep, while CUNT was deleted. I'm personally in favour of both being kept, but surely there should be consistency here? —WFC— 15:07, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
oh noes, it's a naughty word! Everybody run!
  • keep I'm growing rather tired of the civility police stopping by this redirect every few months to try and have it removed or watered down. This isn't a kindergarten. If someone is being a dick, they need to be told they are being a dick. If the mere presence of the word "dick" is too much for you to bear then don't look at the page this redirects to. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:45, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The other flaw in the nomination is the assertion that it "should not be used to describe wikipedians." I fully supprt the idea that it should be used very, very rarely and not thrown about willy-nilly, but WP:SPADE applies. This is all explained rather clearly at the actual page. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:47, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because this is good advice. If people are linking to this while making blatant personal attacks, then they can be sanctioned for that. Removing this page won't make people be any nicer though. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:07, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia needs little remembrance of its sophomorism from the past. Noting that no changes, even minimal ones, have been allowed at Meta for some reason. Collect (talk) 23:07, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'd like to point out that dick can be slang for penis and therefore used as an insult and not being referred to as being dickish. Also it is a little harsh. I mean why not change it to don't be a dictator or don't be very uncivil and/or arrogant or something? --Jamcad01 (talk) 06:51, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • You are perfectly free to instead direct the user to Wikipedia:Don't be inconsiderate if you would prefer. Nobody is forcing anyone to link to this page instead. Beeblebrox (talk) 08:02, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would never use it but someone used it on me and I found it quite harsh and offensive. --Jamcad01 (talk) 08:28, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you actually read the target page, you will see that it makes it quite clear that using this term is generally not a helpful move and may make the person makinmg the accusation look like even more of a dick. Since it seems like your objection is really just based on the fact that this person chose to ignore that advice perhaps you should take that up with them and not take it out on a redirect page. Beeblebrox (talk) 08:38, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've taken it up with him and he just replied saying "noted, and promptly discarded." Anyway I don't want him reported because it was minor & I am not dictator like, unlike some other people. --Jamcad01 (talk) 08:53, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • So You consider removing redirects as the better way of resolving personal conflicts? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 10:49, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • No, but because it is a link to meta it means people can use it without getting in trouble. --Jamcad01 (talk) 03:19, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • So Your problem is not with this redirect, but instead with the essay itself? Then You're addressing wrong forum. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 09:02, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a valid shortcut for essay. The possible misuse is a bad ground for deletion. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 10:49, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Routine misuse would not be. —WFC— 23:02, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • No evidence of any misuse is present, so the question of routine misuse is at least very dubious. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 07:40, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Deleted usages do not get shown as current links. Amazingly enough, the deletion of personal attacks is quite common on Wikipedia. So much for lack of any "misuse" at all - it exists and has existed on Wikipedia. Collect (talk) 14:04, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Jamcad, I find it extremely hypocritical for a person to complain about being offended by WP:DICK when does stuff like this comment and this dialog or this edit summary. Tarc (talk) 15:15, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • That was a while ago when I didn't understand wikipedia policy very well and when I was inexperienced. --Jamcad01 (talk) 03:15, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Given this nomination, I wouldn't be so quick to state that anything has changed in this regard. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 11:03, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Another helpful section of the target page explains that if several people have suggested that you are acting like a dick, you should consider the possibility that they are correct. I also like that Jamcad has no problem with implying this other user is a dictator, but anyone calling him a dick must be wrong. Maybe we should just change the name to WP:DICKTATOR and everyone will ber satisfied. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:11, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I never said the other user was a dictator, I said that some wikipedians are. Also dick is a vague word that can mean different things to different people. Dictator only has one meaning and that is someone who acts like they control everything. Dick is supposed to be an insult while dictator is a descriptive word. Also I was called a genre troll once so I assumed calling someone a biased troll was okay. --Jamcad01 (talk) 03:15, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Make "Don't be a cunt" an alt title or delete Either both dick and cunt should be used or they both should be deleted. PumpkinSky talk 21:17, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete frequently misused. Nobody Ent 04:20, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't believe that reasoning alone can be considered a valid reason to delete anything. People ignorantly link to WP:NPA when no personal attack has taken place on a far more frequent basis and we keep that. People link to WP:3RR when they have breached it themselves all the time and we keep that. Need I go on? Beeblebrox (talk) 06:46, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't believe that comment can be considered reasoning. That's of the same kind as "forbid kitchen knives, too much people are killed with them". — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 09:02, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --Jamcad01 (talk) 07:55, 2 January 2012 (UTC) I've taken the liberty of indenting this. This is purely a procedural edit as the user leaving this comment is already the nominator and it is not neccesary for them to append a bolded word to their signature to register their intentions. Beeblebrox (talk) 08:12, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - A well-written, entirely inoffensive, and genuinely helpful piece of advice. The sassy title certainly encouraged me to read the whole thing, too. There are plenty of other pieces of worthy advice where my TLDR filter cuts in... Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:21, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Do we need to kindergartenize every part of wikipedia? --Guerillero | My Talk 17:36, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not the fact that it is a swear word but the fact that it's extremely harsh and insulting as well as being tasteless in general. It is also frequently used the wrong way. --Jamcad01 (talk) 01:01, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The more comments you make here, the stronger the impression that you have not, even at this late date, bothered to actually read and undersand what the target page actually says. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:39, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • redirect, DAB, or rename. Okay, we've had our juvenile fun with this instructive little bit of homegrown wisdom. The essay is a much cherished part of Wikipedia for some so we shouldn't do away with it, but for goodness sake, it shouldn't be out there as something people continuously link to. If we can live without WP:PLAXICO we can live without WP:DICK. I'm with the rationale in Beeblebrox's vote, but reach the opposite conclusion. Yes, we're not in kindergarten. So why do we have to make potty talk as if we were? - Wikidemon (talk) 19:01, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:PLAXICO was deleted since it was a BLP Violation because it was a reference to the an accidental shooting incident involving professional athlete Plaxico Burress. So unless you think that WP:DICK originated with a person named Dick the two incidents can't be compared since WP:DICK does not violate WP:BLP like WP:PLAXICO did.--70.24.207.225 (talk) 00:06, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2011_December_31&oldid=1089813526"