Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Either way/On retiring


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result of the discussion was withdrawn by nominator. Peter Symonds ( talk ) 23:33, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Either way/On retiring
I have attempted to remove the "Attention whore" section to this piece. It can logically be inferred that this piece is calling anyone who retires in this manner, an attention whore. This peice is in direct contravention to the collaborative spirit we all aim for on this encyclopedia and presents it self as a jab. Thank you for your time and consideration on this.

Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 03:05, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Speedy Delete - Per the nom, calling anyone who retires in a certain manner an "attention whore" is a blantant personal attack and the admin (Either way) should know better. -  NeutralHomer •  Talk  • March 30, 2009 @ 03:17
 * It's not a personal attack, as it doesn't specifically mention any individual. – Juliancolton  | Talk 03:19, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * But by referencing that link, it appears the user is saying that people who retire in a certain way are "attention whores"...even though it doesn't mention a certain editor or editors, it (in my opinion) is a personal attack and should be removed from the page or if the editor refuse to remove the link, the page should be deleted outright. -  NeutralHomer •  Talk  • March 30, 2009 @ 03:23
 * It may very well be uncivil, but it's not a personal attack. – Juliancolton  | Talk 13:33, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Uncivil, personal attack, it really shouldn't matter....it should be there period. Since "Either way" seems unwilling to remove it, my "vote" and opinion is it should be deleted. -  NeutralHomer  •  Talk  • March 30, 2009 @ 14:08


 * Keep to nominate this over one see also section is ridiculous. I explained here why I believe having this phrase is justified.  If users feel this phrase is inappropriate, they should have started discussion with me on my talk page or the talk page of this essay rather than removing it themselves or starting an MFD discussion.  Before today, only one other person has ever mentioned an objection to the phrase despite being viewed several hundred times by, I'm sure, dozens of editors.  either way (talk) 10:34, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep only if See Also is deleted The rest is clearly an opinion and not an attack on any individual.  I would (without invoking otherstuffexists) note that WP has many essays which are more strongly worded. I would, however, ask that the objectionable section be removed, as it does not serve to advance the case made by the essay. Collect (talk) 12:53, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - This is a valid essay which contains a user's opinion, and it's not a personal attack in any way. – Juliancolton  | Talk 14:16, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Conditional keep, the condition being that the link to attention whore is removed; if it is not, then delete. While I think it does further the point of essay, it does so in an uncivil manner and its inclusion is not necessary to advance the point of the essay. –Black Falcon (Talk) 18:22, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as a redirect to Attention whore. Alternately, a secondarily good solution is to keep it as it is.  Either solution is fine, but a redirect may be more appropriate.  --Jayron32. talk . contribs  20:32, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Question for all those arguing to keep with the condition the attention whore is removed. I'm curious as to how it is any different than WP:DICK.  I think that saying that someone is a dick is more inappropriate than implying that they might be seeking attention.  either way (talk) 00:10, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, I was arguing that your essay was redundant with the concept of "Attention whore". But I was being facetious about it.  Seriously, are we MFDing this userspace essay because it uses the word whore?  Don't we have better things to do?  --Jayron32. talk . contribs  00:56, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, don't worry Jayron32, I caught the tone of your response. I'm referring to the several others in here who are suggesting that the mention of it is offensive and an attack and all that.  either way (talk) 01:31, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's an attack per se, but it is intended to be offensive, right? For what it's worth, I favor deleting WP:DICK. Neither WP:DICK nor the link to Attention whore is helpful to the project. –Black Falcon (Talk) 04:47, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I am with Black Falcon....WP:DICK doesn't help the project and isn't encyclopedic. I will even go as far as to say that WP:DICK should be deleted before this page.  But that is neither here nor there. -  NeutralHomer  •  Talk  • March 31, 2009 @ 05:01
 * Delete While it doesn't appear to be a personal attack on a specific individual, it seems to unfairly generalize an entire group of people who briefly leave under unhappy circumstances and then return to start again. Pastor Theo (talk) 02:10, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, users are entitled to their opinions. Stifle (talk) 09:43, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * People are allowed to editorialize about wikipedia in their user space. If you're offended by this, it's probably because you're an attention whore a drama queen. Friday (talk) 20:05, 31 March 2009 (UTC) In the interest of not offending any prostitutes, I've struck "attention whore".  It's still offensive to the dramakinder, but this can't be helped
 * Note the attention whore has been replaced with drama queen. I believe that more accurately reflects my intent with the article.  either way (talk) 20:09, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I don't see anything inappropriate in this essay, it may have been removed. Techman224  Talk  20:36, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The less offensive "drama queen" has been substituted. Collect (talk) 22:02, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I withdraw the nomination. The insensitive descriptive of our contributers has been removed.  Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 22:57, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 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 (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.