Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Do not say "With all due respect"

 __NOINDEX__
 * 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 delete. Userfication might have been a possibility, had not the author herself made the nomination. JohnCD (talk) 16:27, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Do not say "With all due respect"


Can we delete this silly super-short "Wikipedia essay" please? Full disclosure: I wrote the essay. I regret putting it in Wikipedia space. If it was ever funny, it soon wore off. It has been altered a few times by others, mainly in ways to make it say the opposite (making the title absurd), but its current state is pretty much as I wrote it. Here's the first version and the latest version for comparison. I had some thoughts of simply speedying it, since I really don't think it needs to be kept to honor the other editors' right to their content. But, thinking about it, that might not be a proper use of admin tools. So I'm asking you, dear community, to support deletion. Bishonen &#124; talk 12:53, 26 July 2013 (UTC).
 * With all due respect, Madam, but I like this essay and I wish it would stay. However, if you prefer it was deleted, I do not see any policy that would make us keep it.  So Delete.  :) Tex (talk) 13:02, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, Madam, but I liked this essay and I wish it would stay. However, if you prefer it was deleted, and as it is essentially all yours, Delete. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:20, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Uhh… what? You liked it? Anyway, I think you were right the first time. Something like that may be funny for two days at the outside, and then not. I should have had the sense to keep it in my userspace. Bishonen &#124; talk 13:32, 26 July 2013 (UTC).
 * That was intended to be funny. I'm not very good at it. I think your essay was a fine statement, though not universally understood, and it would probably better exist as a talk page archive/history than a Projectspace essay lasting forever. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:09, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per author's wish since the current content is not so different from the original version. Sjakkalle (Check!)  13:36, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * delete per nom. plus I don't agree with the content - it doesn't always mean that, and sometimes it is used to soften a phrase that may otherwise be misinterpreted. Just mho.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:47, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete I noticed the minor disruption at the essay, and it would be pointless to battle over the ultimate meaning of "with all due respect". Johnuniq (talk) 01:04, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Note. It's just struck me that I might have achieved a satisfactory result by simply redirecting the page to WIKISPEAK, which it's redundant with. But now that we're here, do let's delete it — that's even better, and I appreciate the input above — and then perhaps re-point the shortcut WP:WADR, which (per What links here) people mostly use, to the Wikispeak page. No need to break all those links. Bishonen &#124; talk 13:10, 27 July 2013 (UTC).
 * Keep or merge:I link to it constantly. If it is deleted, I'm going to get blocked for saying what I really think!   Montanabw (talk) 18:23, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * LOL, that'll never do. But merge with what? Bishonen &#124; talk 20:07, 30 July 2013 (UTC).
 * One of the articles mentioned by the other folks in this thread above. The proposed redirect, perhaps. Frankly, I really think Keep is the best option, though I suppose the endless drahmahz war by the satire-impaired would be wearing for you... sigh.   Montanabw (talk) 17:12, 31 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Userfy and redirect the resulting redirect and the shortcut to Wiktionary.
 * This essay inherently causes misunderstandings. It's wrong on the meaning of the phrase and so, when someone writes "with all due respect" in a talk post and links the phrase to this essay, the link puts readers on wrongful notice and contradicts its purpose. The essay thus violates policy.
 * That it is wrong is determined from dictionaries:
 * ** Wiktionary
 * ** The New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary on Historical Principles (Oxford: Clarendon (Oxford University Press), [4th] ed. thumb index ed. [1st printing?] 1993 (ISBN 0-19-861271-0)), entry respect (not under other three words): "with (all due) respect" (boldfacing omitted) means "a polite preface to an expression of disagreement with another person's views."
 * Other dictionaries are silent under any of the four words:
 * ** Partridge, Eric, ed. Paul Beale, A Dictionary of Catch Phrases: American and British, from the Sixteenth Century to the Present Day (Lanham, Maryland: Scarborough House, 2d ed., rev. & updated ed., 1st trade pbk. ed. 1992 (ISBN 0-8128-8536-8))
 * ** The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (Boston, Mass.: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 5th ed. [1st printing?] 2011 (ISBN 978-0-547-04101-8))
 * ** Random House Webster's Unabridged Dictionary (N.Y.: Random House, 2d ed. [1st printing?] 2001 (ISBN 0-375-42566-7))
 * ** Webster's Third New International Dictionary of the English Language Unabridged (G. & C. Merriam (Merriam-Webster ser.), 1966)
 * A thesaurus had nothing on point. Chapman, Robert L., ed., Roget's International Thesaurus (New York: HarperPerennial, 5th ed., 1st HarperPerennial ed. [5th printing? printing of [19]94?] plain pbk. 1992 (ISBN 0-06-270046-4 or 0-06-272037-6)), phrase not indexed under first three words and nothing on point found at respect in paragraphs 155.1–155.3, 504.1–504-10, 509.1–509.8, 587.3, and 662.3 or antonymically in paragraphs 156.1–156.3, 505.1–505.3, 510.1–510.9, 589.1–589.6, and 661.1–661.6.
 * And the essay is unsourced.
 * The phrase is a cliché and, as such, is weakly meant, but that is not a semantic reversal, does not justify one, and does not support the present essay.
 * Probably most of us readers follow only those links that are likely to tell us things we didn't know. If we already know an ordinary meaning of a linked phrase and the context does not suggest a difference, we're unlikely to follow a link, and, since there are too many links for most of us to follow all of them, selectivity is good and typically necessary. E.g., if an editor tells another that "Wikipedia needs reliable sources", that should not be a link to a secret code for 'unreliable sources are needed' (or '... allowed') and if we already know about RS we don't need to follow the link. In this case, the link provides concealed notice of a communication, thus often failed or false notice. (In August, 2012, about 5–6 of 14 links to the essay were misleading.) If someone wants to insult us with a phrase like "with all due respect", they should insult us openly (which is generally not permitted) or refrain from insulting us. Linking to an essay like this should presumptively be treated simultaneously as a personal attack, as incivility, and as an etiquette breach and, because of the virtual concealment, as gaming the system, all policy or guideline violations, even though the essay does have some cautionary content and the humor and unsourced linguistics could be appreciated (a reason I waited after discovering the essay until recently and was preparing an RfC) if misuse weren't encouraged.
 * Sanctioning against each editor linking to it in a misleading way is too cumbersome, while correcting the problem with the essay itself is more efficient. Therefore, I propose:
 * ** that this essay be userfied, probably to its principal editor's userspace (User:Bishonen is the creator and its most frequent editor)
 * ** that the resulting redirect at the old URL and the shortcut to the essay in the Wikipedia namespace (WP:WADR) both be redirected to the Wiktionary entry
 * Nick Levinson (talk) 16:46, 1 August 2013 (UTC) (Reformatted & corrected syntax, hyphen (to en-dash), & missing diacritical: 16:59, 1 August 2013 (UTC)) (Corrected syntax & corrected hyphens to dashes: 17:07, 1 August 2013 (UTC))
 * Wow, you've put in more work on this trifle than it deserves. You make very thoughtful points, but I'm rather surprised at your conclusions from them. What would be the point of userfying the essay to my space after I've asked for it to be deleted? I'd obviously just delete it there. As for the shortcut WP:WADR, it has already been redirected to the definition of "respect" in WikiSpeak which, just like Do not say "With all due respect", has a humor template. That seems more considerate towards the people out there who have linked to it at some time in order to show that they weren't using the phrase in its literal meaning. We don't do cross-project redirects, such as to Wiktionary. Bishonen &#124; talk 19:09, 1 August 2013 (UTC).

Sheesh. On top of that, when I link to the article, I really DO mean to tell someone to go f--k themselves! No misunderstandings. And anyone I throw it at is either 1) A buddy with whom I am joking, or 2)  Someone I seriously want to choke and I'm intentionally daring them to get butt hurt and take me to ANI. Montanabw (talk) 23:16, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't mind the humor; if it's userfied to your userspace and then you delete it, that's your choice, but I don't want to censor. When I saw the AfD, I didn't respond at first because I looked like it would lead to deletion, leaving only the issue of the link, but I'm becoming dubious now. I appreciate the sentiment it states but linking to it or the other essay likely causes misunderstandings, because readers are justified in assuming the link would simply tell them the weakly positive meaning of with all due respect and therefore wouldn't click the link, and would entirely miss the linker's negative intent, thus defeating the linker's purpose unless the linker is only trying to communicate with a subset of third parties who know the code, back-stabbing, as it were. (I acted on this because of some past experiences with some editors which may arise again.)
 * If an editor wants to state something that will risk an AN/I claim, a straightforward statement will do it better.
 * Buddies who share the humor are not a problem.
 * I'm under the impression that we do cross-project links; I've seen them, I've seen instructions on how to write them, and I've occasionally applied them. But if an intra-Wikipedia destination solves the problem of being misleading and not turning links into redlinks, another destination is fine; I suppose any of us could write an essay simply about the weakly positive meaning, although Wiktionary is more likely to be linguistically maintained, and if the negative meaning enters Wiktionary per sourcing then so be it (joining words like sanction that have pairs of opposite meanings).
 * Nick Levinson (talk) 15:22, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * WIth all due respect Nick, I don't think you get it. Really, you don't.   Montanabw (talk) 20:43, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * You're making my argument; you've now said, by your link, that you think I'm "talking bollocks" or "nonsense or information deliberately intended to mislead" (the latter from Wiktionary). Please specify how I'm deliberately misleading anyone or stating nonsense or else withdraw your link. Otherwise, you are violating what is forbidden by policy/guideline and you should reconsider whether you want to continue to be abusive, because I take your last post as serious, not humorous, because of its tone, and rectification is needed. Being specific is far more communicative and helpful than the link and what so far appears to be a false charge, even if it is more work, and I'm not sure it is more, since you presumably thought of your objection before you thought of attacking. Nick Levinson (talk) 16:09, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

No, I'm actually implying that I really do wish you would go away because I am now annoyed. Your arguments constitute precisely the sort of humor-impaired literalism that this essay was written to poke a little gentle fun at. We really have insufficient dramafests on wiki and need more wasted bandwidth. So, oh Please, take me to ANI for linking the Bish's essay. We simply do not have enough nonsense happening on-wiki. Montanabw (talk) 22:19, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The essay was not what I objected to so much as the misleading link. The essay is clear and can stay in Wikipedia, as far as I'm concerned, and said so. The link has to be followed to realize that the meaning is the opposite of what the link says and therefore constitutes a stab-in-the-back style of attack. Humor that leaves a limited circle of friends is inevitably understood in light of other people's experiences and values and it is the utterer's responsibility to be reasonably careful. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a private club and not a place for making false accusations, as you have done. Nick Levinson (talk) 16:44, 4 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete as a courtesy to the page creator (although I expect she understands that if the page is deleted on this ground, someone else might sooner or later write a similar one). I can't help observing that some of the overblown discussion above would be as much at home in a parody of a Wikipedia discussion as in this actual one. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:18, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep But stop anyone from changing anything in it other than the original creator. Its funny, honest, and potentially useful.   D r e a m Focus  15:50, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Userify. It has a variety of meaning, and what is stated is one of them. But it belongs in userspace, as too personal a statement of opinion, and too confusing to WP space unless it was changed to include thing its author did not intend. Of course, if we do weep it in WP space, anyone can change it. the above proposal for OWNership is against policy.    DGG ( talk ) 19:40, 4 August 2013 (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.