Wikipedia talk:Don't-give-a-fuckism/Archive 1

Untitled
Oh God... I wasn't expepecting that userbox.. I nearly fell out of my chair laughing. --The Prophet Wiz ard of the Cray on Cake  19:57, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Quick poll
Support:
 * Give a fuck, but only by choice, and only when there's a stake. &mdash; David Spalding ta!k y@wp / Contribs 01:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * To me, it means not taking the actions of other users personally, and I'm all for that. - - weirdo actor  tundefinedc -  - 05:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I support this article (for the most part). --Jfowler27 16:48, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. Realizing that you have the option of not giving a fuck enables you to have a life and stop holding vigil over talk pages and articles making sure the wikiworld is consistent with your reality. Try this.  You can meet friends and women this way.  You can engage in activities whose outcome is less trivial than what a webpage ends up reading.  Read, learn a language, write a book, take up an instrument, make love to your girlfriend, because nothing that happens here matters so damn much.--Loodog 04:50, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Support. Editors who object obviously missed the point. Either don't read it or keep reading it until you do DGAF. --Anakin (contribs • complaints) 00:22, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * LOVE IT - Wikipedia is a better place for it!Marathi_Mulgaa (talk) 22:55, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Oppose:
 * Strong oppose: This is Wikipedia, not Uncyclopedia. -Yancyfry 03:41, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose: Exactly this is a joke, should be deleted. -PatPeter 02:59, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose: This incoherent essay contributes only shame to Wikipedia. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 13:17, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Meh:
 * The Prophet Wiz ard of the Cray on Cake  20:03, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Could care less. T REX speak 01:17, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Don't give a fuck. &mdash;  Da rk Sh ik ar i   talk /contribs  23:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Whatever Ttiotsw 03:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong supp—I'm bored now. -Amarkov blahedits 17:55, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Rudeness
This page has to be renamed to reflect politeness.--10:09, 19 September 2006 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patchouli (talk • contribs)


 * Who the fuck gives a fuck about fucking politeness? Besides, Wikipedia is not censored. oTHErONE (Contribs) 06:43, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Rewording indecent language is not censorship.--08:41, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
 * (Actually, that is the dictionary definition of censorship.) Noclevername 09:47, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * No. Censorship is suppression of objectionable language. Politeness suppresses nothing but unconstructive offensiveness. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 13:51, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It was created as Don't-give-a-fuckism and it will stay that way. oTHErONE (Contribs) 09:39, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm fine with changing the name... but I think the "fuck" sort of embodies the entire idea behind the ism. But yeah... I don't really care. --The Prophet Wiz ard of the Cray <font color="MediumBlue">on Cake  14:00, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm outraged and offended at the rudeness behind this article. PROD ahoy! ;D--WaltCip 23:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't care how offended people are by the title, but it seems that the title could be more accurate. Don't-give-a-fuckism seems to be a title for sensationalism instead of accuracy. A more correct title would be Apathetic Philosophy or something along those lines. Don't-give-a-fuckism should be talked about inside the article (i.e. an alternate phrasing). I like the article, but I think it needs to be edited to sound like a serious article. --Jfowler27 16:48, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


 * IMHO it doesn't need to be censored (make the title more palatable to sensitivities) to be "serious." Its irreverence is the point. Readers who don't "get it" don't have to, 'cause we DGAF. See? But if the title is keeping the thing in a rut, maybe "Ambiable Apathy" or "Irreverent Apathy" (see my userbox mod below) is more your (plural) cuppa tea? David Spalding ( ☎ ✉ ✍  ) 21:35, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree it doesn't need to be censored, at least not simply because it offends people or uses course language. I'm starting to see that it might not hold the same weight or meaning if the title is changed. It felt inaccurate at first, but going through it again, the suggested apathy is obvious in the actual article and the creation of an ism for it is a fairly good idea. Don't-give-a-fuckism might ruffle a few stuffy people, but who gives a fuck. Right? --Jfowler27 07:33, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Pretty much... -- The Prophet Wiz ard of the Cray on Cake  22:43, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

NO! I BELIEVE IT SHOULD BE DELETED NOW!!!!!!!! I AM SHOCKED AND DEEPLY OFFENDED THAT AN ENCYCLOPEDIA AS FINE AS WIKIPEDIA WOULD CREATE SUCH AN INSULTING ARTICLE!!!!!! Ntyfj 18:23, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I am shocked an appalled you cannot follow basic Internet conventions on such a fine site as Wikipedia. But as it has been stated above, Wikipedia is not censored. If you want to discuss how this page needs to be revised, or in fact deleted, maybe you should divulge your reasoning other than that you are deeply offended, because that alone is a very hollow argument. --Jfowler27 20:00, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I find overuse of capitol letters and exclamation marks deeply offensive. Stop it at once. Noclevername 09:47, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I see that this article is trying to make a point, but there is no need for the vulgar language, which can offend. I beleive that this is breaking Civility, so should be reworded. I would give it a go, but its a little too heated. --Chickenfeed9 16:50, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * This is going to be an endless cycle, but WP:NOT says we aren't censored, but WP:CIVIL says we should be semi-censored. WP:WTF exists, however, which has the same connotation. And that argument I just cited there is the OTHERCRAPEXISTS argument, which contains words that might need to be censored... But, personally, words don't bother me, especially words here... Logical2uReview me! 22:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, please. Now, Wikipedia itself is using foul language. I'm embarrassed to be a User. -Yancyfry
 * Wikipedia itself is using foul language? Naw, it's just in reference to an actual Wiki article. ;) <FONT STYLE="verdana" COLOR ="#990000">Rock</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000033">star</FONT> ( T/C ) 03:24, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I dont see a problem with this essay. So far, it seems to be true about what its saying about not giving a fuck. so for the people trying to get this essay deleted. who gives a fuck and get the hell over it. Resinhitevil (talk) 01:53, 11 February 2008 (UTC)ResinhitEvil


 * This page is obscene and is certainly not what one would expect to see in an encyclopaedia. How can Wikipedia have any credibility if you immature pigs publish vulgar stuff like this?(Huey45 (talk) 05:29, 20 June 2010 (UTC))

Honestly who gives a fuck????? haha i still found it didn't I....wikipedia didnt GIVE a FUCK so neither will we!!!


 * On the contrary, how can WIkipedia have any credibility if it becomes censored and child-proofed to the point that we wouldn't have the opportunity to be called pigs by a stupid asshole such as yourself ?  <font color="#225DC8">Snotty <font color="#994400">Wong  converse 14:55, 20 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry Huey, I should have just directed you to DBAD. <font color="#00AA00">Snotty <font color="#994400">Wong  confess 16:11, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Get up off your fucking soapbox
Change the name to reflect politeness, go shag a donkey. --Maxasus 15:41, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Hahaha... how contradictory. ^_^ --<font color="MediumBlue">The Prophet Wiz <font color="SeaGreen">ard of the Cray <font color="MediumBlue">on Cake  22:46, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I like this essay and disagree with the PROD nomination. WP is not censored, is not a democracy. If you don't like the article, don't read it. &mdash; David Spalding ta!k y@wp / Contribs 13:23, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Please Expand Article
DO NOT DELETE THIS ARTICLE Oh My God. Best article I ever read here on Wikipedia. Surprised it has not been deleted yet. So funny, I cannot help but request for it to be expanded upon. Two thumbs up to the author. :) --The Jax 01:30, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, awright, I'll try to give a fuck sufficiently to add a little to The Little Essay That Couldn't (Give a Fuck). BTW, I love the userbox, but modified it a bit for my own use. David Spalding ( ☎ ✉ ✍  ) 04:16, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

WTF?
What kind of weak, sad article is this? Save your jokes for uncyclopedia. This is a real encyclopedia. Wolfdog 23:30, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


 * 1) It's not an article, it's an essay.
 * 2) Are you saying apathy is a joke?
 * 3) We know.  oTHErONE (Contribs) 23:27, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * A sense of humour is necessary to "get" this essay. Just as it is with WP:NAM, WP:CHILL, WP:TIND, and manymanymany titles under Category:Wikipedia_essays. David Spalding ( ☎ ✉ ✍  ) 00:36, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


 * 1) I apologize for seeming as though I was trying to shoot down this page. I do think an idea such as "not-giving-a-fuckism" would be funny, however I do not understand what it has to do with an online encyclopedia. It just seems unnecessary or perhaps I simply do not understand its relevance. Maybe if this could be better-explained Wolfdog 03:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't this article be on Uncyclopedia? This is Wikipedia, which is meant to be serious, and it is not for articles like this one. - Ned (unregistered user)


 * Again - it's not an article, it's an essay/project page. And, a serious one at that. :p Nortonius (talk) 17:12, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Uncyclopedia is unrelated and irrelevant to Wikipedia. We cannot move Wikipedia pages to Uncyclopedia at will. Uncyclopedia would probably not find it funny since it does not have enough gratuitous sexual jokes or references to Oscar Wilde. I like this essay. It proves that 'fuck' will not be censored for no good reason in this fine encyclopaedia.  McLerristarr /  Mclay1  17:22, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Comment
It's a very Buddhist idea that conflict comes from attachment (See Noble Truth #2) and can be solved only by apathy (See # 3), but it's not a universal idea. But I'm not sure that it is the best use of the Wikipedia policy space to promote such a very specific idea about where conflict comes from and how it can be solved, although of course essays, as personal opinions, have more leeway. There are other approaches, after all, to creating harmony. Perhaps it might be better to allow for them, and in particular to allow room for people who care about their opinions and views and explain how we can still be civil with each other, be respectful and fair to opposing ideas, and be careful to check facts while we have whatever opinions we have and give whatever fuck we give about them. This is, after all, most of us. In any event it might be good, even in a humorous essay, to say something like "The Buddha taught that..." and attribute the conflict-comes-from-attachment-and-is-solved-by-apathy idea rather than presenting it as fact or a Wikipediaism. Suggest that WP:NPOV is applicable even to an essay on WP:NPOV! Best, --Shirahadasha 21:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Sounds pretty good. Want to change the essay up a bit? Basically that's the idea behind it: attachment to Wikipedia is what causes dissarray. It's kind of ironic. The Prophet Wiz ard of the Cray  on Cake  21:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Deletion
I wish to delete this article(Please do NOT curse at me, using that disgusting f*** word, or I shall report this at WP:Pain). This page is utter nonsense with a shocking amount of cursing and insulting other users. This page is of no coherent use to anyone, in my opinion. This is why I wish to propose a deletion. Anyone who agrees please sign below: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uioh (talk • contribs)


 * Cursing is not equivalent to insulting. Far from the contrary actually, this essay really has no intent of insulting or personally attacking anyone. If your main objection is simply the use of curse words, I don't really consider that proper grounds for deletion, as they are nothing more than mere words really. Despite their implied insult-like connotation, few of the "curse words" really mean anything insulting. "Fuck", for example, has evolved from a German word that means "to hit", to an English word that means "to have sexual intercourse", to a verb, noun, adjective, adverb, and gerund that has really no meaning at all. The point of the essay is to simply state a possible mindset or ideology one could take when dealing with Wikipedia. If you look beyond the "dirty" words, there's relatively little belligerent attitude taken in the essay.


 * On a more technical note, the proper place to recommend this for delicious deletion is Miscellany for Deletion -- The Prophet Wiz ard of the Cray  on Cake  20:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Wow. He/she/it can't manage to sign their posts, yet they want to take all the naughty bits away from Wikipedia? How quaint. Isn't there a stoning or a book burning in their area that they are late for right about now? -- weirdoactor tundefinedc 22:00, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Well spank me raw. I've got me box of stones (Halal gravel perhaps?), my gas can and a box of matches. It's a crystal clear night; where do I meet up ?. I see from the proposers other edit e.g. that they feel that Wikipedia should censor articles. I don't really like this Disneyification of Wikipedia idea. Wikipedia is about consensus and WP:POINT come to mind given they seem to want to clean up Wikipedia and make it conform to a model for which no policy supports. The deletion of this article would mean that it's purpose and meaning is suspended so that I could be neutral in any WP:MFD discussion and thus I would have to by default give a f*ck. To preempt the attempt to delete this I feel that the consensus would be to keep the article and I would hope that they reconsider any attempt. To delete this article would mean to spike what it represents and I feel that is wrong. Ttiotsw 22:43, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The problem with this argument for deletion is that there is little or no ground to it. I fail to see what part of this article is nonsensical and although in mainstream society many view various connotations of the word fuck to be inappropriate, but in this article the connotation is not negative. Fuck is used commonly in the modern American-English language as a filler word often with either strong emotional or apathetic connotations. The connotation used in this article is in the form of apathy, as in "I don't give a fuck." This apathetic frame of mind has been named using this phraseology and constructed into an ism. I do not see how this would lead to a deletion of the article.


 * Instead of trying to delete an article based on a weak argument, at best, maybe you could discuss how the article could be changed to better suit Wikipedia. If you think there are nonsensical portions or coherency problems you could help by pointing those out. Also try and ask yourself what you find disgusting about this article and its use of the word fuck. --Jfowler27 22:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm responding to this particular editor, if that's the right word, of the discussion as the logic seems clear and careful. As a new user not only of Wikipedia but also of the Net, I found some of the other responses on this page unclear (I don't understand the slang),scornful, and disrespectful in ways that seem to contradict editorial policy. This was very disappointing on an otherwise welcoming website.

I want to suggest reasons for editing the original article based on general and specific principles. Generally: Some contributors seem to say that censorship is unacceptable. However, if Wikipedia stands by its policies of respect for cultures, religions etc then it is indeed advocating censorship based on the assumption that humans (especially vulnerable ones such as children) have the right to be secure from assault, verbal or otherwise. I think this is fair. The people who use sarcasm and exaggerated allusions to criticise other people's requests for more moderate language may be happy to hear such rudeness about themselves but cannot therefore assume the right to be rude. There are good places for expressing strong opinions about other people's opinions but not on Wikipedia.

Specifically: I agree with the writer that fuck is commonly used but don't agree with the inference that that makes it acceptable. (The same false defence has been used in the past about other words now generally avoided e.g. words used by White people to describe Black slaves. Dr Johnson wrote in the 18th century: The antiquity of an abuse does not justify its continuation!) I personally find fuck offensive unless used for a purpose. It would be fine in the title -- grabs the reader's attention. But to repeat it so often in the text rather loses purpose, like the wit of a child who has learnt one joke and tells it a hundred times to anyone who will listen. Couldn't the word be replaced by an acronym? It was really a good article apart from this irritation. I found it while reading with great interest the lively articles on handling various mastodons. It would be good if this last essay were changed just slightly to reach the high level of the others80.189.23.217 01:32, 13 January 2007 (UTC)stoford.


 * If the word fuck is commonly used then it must be acceptable to those who are using it so commonly. The real question would be whether or not using the world fuck is necessary in this article, as per Profanity. I think it can easily be argued either way. From my perspective, the connotation and context of the word make all the difference. It does not seem that fuck is being used in a negative context or connotation in the article.


 * Moreover, I do not see the article being saturated with the word fuck. By my count there are about 595 words in the article and a total of 24 uses of the word fuck or a form of it. This is only a ~4% saturation, which isn't too bad considering the article pertains to the creation of an ism using the word fuck.


 * In any case, I think we need to continue the discussion on this with more insight of why or why not fuck should be altered, removed, or left as is in the article. Should Wikipedia Use Profanity? I believe this article is an acceptable use a profanity, but it's still open to discussion as always. --Jfowler27 05:32, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I personally don't care. Delete/replace/edit whatever you want. I won't take it personally. :P -- The Prophet Wiz ard of the Cray on Cake  07:39, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect, I personally wish for this page to be deleted. To me, it is quite pointless and offending to several users, as shown on the Rudeness setion of this page. I agree with them, so I beg of you, please delete this page. Thanks very much. After all, after all ,I do not really want to be cursed at, and I believe the F word is quite insulting. 69.122.3.19 17:46, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Deletion is not discussion. The deletionists, or Disneyification of WP movement really have no grounds to stand on IMHO other than "I don't like it." Waa, waa, waa. That this essay is now a lightning rod for knee-jerk censors and those who think that "I don't understand it, therefore it has no place here" is a testament to its relevancy. If you don't like the essay, don't read it. Go outside ... play in the sunshine ... do something nice for your neighbor ... leave the policing of WP to those who aren't as prone to outrage. Oh, and by the way,... DGAFF about registering, even though it might give credibility to your voice. Nyaaah! David Spalding ( ☎ ✉ ✍  ) 18:35, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me, but I believe you were unkind to the user 69.122.3.19. All he did was voice his personal opinion. I suggest you apologize to him at once, please. Uioh 20:37, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * What, Disneyfication is supposed to mean censorship and not showy bowdlerization, in a theme-park manner? :) &mdash;  Rickyrab | Talk 14:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

You've forgotten something...
the main idea of this essay seems to be forgotten here. The point is to not care. If you're getting angered by a so-called "disneyfication of wikipedia" movement, you're doing the exact opposite of what the essay you support recommends you to do. If you're getting angered by pointless and superfluent use of the word fuck, or simply by the perceived lack of a point to this essay, you're caring entirely too much as well. Give the essay some time to evolve and it'll probably become less direct, more meaningful, and less controversial. - The Prophet Wiz ard of the Cray on Cake  20:39, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * It's an essay, not a guideline or policy. Therefore we can argue strenuously against its deletion. We need not follow it to acknowledge its right to exist. Epthorn 13:16, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Does it follow Wikipedia guidelines for content?
This article should probably be deleted because it violates the Wikipedia guidelines for content. The guidelines say that an article should contain verifiable information, and there is no real information in this essay that can be verified by research. The guidelines say that an article should not contain what they call original research, and this essay is nothing but. The guidelines also say that an article should be written from a neutral point of view, and as a self-proclaimed essay that is only the user's opinion, it may not qualify on that point either. Whether it offends people or not, it simply doesn't provide any information, which is the entire point of an encyclopedia. I'm in favor of deleting the article. SirenDrake 04:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It is not an article. Not all the rules for articles apply to user pages, talk pages or Wikipedia project pages. A WP:MFD was raised recently and the consensus was to keep more or less. This is probably not the best of pages to try and turn WP:Consensus on so soon after the MFD. Ttiotsw 04:55, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Luckily, this is an essay, not an article. It is not PART of the encyclopedia, which is why it is in the Wikipedia and not the article(main) namespace. That is the difference. Wikipedia space SPECIFICALLY allows for such essays as long as they concern themselves only with Wikipedia. --<font face="Verdana"><font color="SteelBlue">Elar a <font color="SteelBlue">girl  Talk 04:41, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * When I made that post, I did not realize that the essay had just had a formal review to consider deletion. I shall be more careful about that in future, but I am very new to Wikipedia. How new? I created my account yesterday. I also did not realize that the essay was a user page and not part of the article namespace, therefore not really a part of the encyclopedia. That being the case, the essay might be considered in poor taste by some, but I agree with the consensus reached: that's no reason to delete it. However, it does seem to me that it is inappropriate for this personal essay to be on the list of articles that have had a request for expansion. After all, it isn't an article. I have no objection to the essay being expanded, and I have no objection to a request that it be expanded, but isn't there a better place to make a request for the expansion of a personal page? SirenDrake 16:36, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I figured you were new with your userpage being a redlink, but new doesn't mean you can't have an opinion. As for expansion...I think the core of what this page is saying -- don't take things so seriously, don't assume that the importance to you is to everyone, etc, -- could use expansion, and perhaps a great deal of expansion. It might be a bit of a personal page, but increasingly, people seem to be getting so upset over Wikipedia that they hurt other users, make vicious personal attacks, stalk edits, make ugly off-wiki scenes, and worse. If more people applied DGAF, these things -- which in my opinion are more dangerous than a profanity laced personal essay -- might go down. On the other hand, you are certainly right in that a REQUEST for expansion is a bit ... much. --<font face="Verdana"><font color="SteelBlue">Elar a <font color="SteelBlue">girl  Talk 19:48, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

On a more positive note...
I've cleaned up a few chunks of the essay to make it more coherant, and (possibly) less childish. I'm trying to quell the controversy that seems to have sprouted, while at the same time shaping it into a more meaningful idea of what I had in mind. - The Prophet Wiz ard of the Cray on Cake  20:39, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Can we please just be adults, eh?
If you're offended by the fact that the article makes repetitive use of the word "fuck", I suggest you understand that Wikipedia is not censored, and if it offends you that badly then don't look at it. In short, ignore the word fuck by not giving a fuck.  Dooms Day349  00:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * No. You ignore that people don't like the word "fuck" by not giving a fuck. If we were all adults we'd all abide by WP:CIVIL and this essay would be deleted in a jiffy.. ;) --Kjoonlee 14:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Civility is an official policy. If you don't keep it, you risk being banished. --Kjoonlee 14:45, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry you can't just say "this is uncivil" and that's that. Identify the phrases or paragraph that are uncivil, please. Convince us other editors of your perspective. Or better yet, edit the article to suit your concerns. .... Perhaps you should review WP:NPA ("you risk being banished") and WP:AGF. Sounds like you're assuming that this essay is an oblique attack on WP editors. You are responsible for your own assumptions, including ensuring that you're first presuming that the author is NOT attacking others. Make sense? David Spalding ( ☎ ✉ ✍  ) 15:06, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, copious amounts of expletives (which are quite unnecessary IMHO) are uncivil. --Kjoonlee 15:18, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * -In my "honest opinion" your "honest opinion" does not an incivility make. The rules WP:Civil do not preclude content because it includes vulgarity. If you believe they do, please cite the proper passage. Until then, why don't you simply not look at information that you feel is objectionable? If you see "fuck" in the title, you can probably guess that the contents will include vulgarity.Epthorn 13:20, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * And isn't it true that you risk being banished if you break policies? --Kjoonlee 15:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Um, couldn't you have assumed that I didn't assume that the author was making personal attacks? :( --Kjoonlee 15:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the WP:CIVIL policy mainly concerned with the way users interact with Wikipedia (i.e. the way they edit and discuss on talk pages), not the decency of an article/essay? Wikipedia is also not a buracracy, "A perceived procedural error made in posting anything, such as an idea or nomination, is not grounds for invalidating that post." We usually do not threaten each other with banishment around here, since the normal way of resolving things on WP is to discuss how to best come up with a consensus, banning is not something taken lightly. Lastly, if you find that the use of the word fuck is unnecessary profanity, please discuss with us why you believe this, and how the article could best be improved. —Jfowler27 18:47, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * So would this article be better, for instance, if it had said "Don't give a hoot-ism?" That would please you?   Dooms  Day349  18:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, that would have pleased me. --Kjoonlee 11:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

A. Wikipedia is NOT censored. B. Per Ignore we can ignore all rules to further wikipedia so I am ignoring Wp:civil Mww113 (talk) 02:09, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Nope, you can't ignore WP:CIVIL because it doesn't further Wikipedia to upset contributors. --Kjoonlee 11:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I've gotten over the feeling and I don't give a hoot about this essay's name anymore. --Kjoonlee 11:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

In case you missed the deletion discussion ...
...we don't give a fuck if this offends you. If you don't understand what this page is trying to accomplish, or if you're more concerned about your personally being offended than trying to build an encyclopedia and not acting like Wikipedia is real life, then you need to report to your nearest clue dispenser. Profanity doesn't bother me...and most people who it does bother can't seem to actually look beyond that. --<font face="Verdana"><font color="SteelBlue">Elar a <font color="SteelBlue">girl  Talk 22:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * It's more than just amusing to me, but very telling too, that a user here who didn't like my contention here and on the deletion discussion has now established a beachhead on my Talk page, found something in the past to chide and castigate me over, and when I've asked him/her to stop, has escalated. Civil? In a pig's eye. WP:NPA? I dunno, repeatedly posting to an editor's Talk page with no purpose but to belittle him, and refusing to cease and desist, seems antagonistic. Of course, I'm sure s/he thinks they're doing me a Grand Favor to pepper me with "neener, neener, neener." What's an editor to do? If As I promise to try to do on my User page,... respond with amiable fucking apathy. My ravioli is finished cooking, it is time to ... EAT IT. David Spalding ( ☎ ✉ ✍  ) 01:03, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * That's right. It's this essay that helped me get over yelling at everyone who disagreed with me.  it was downright therapeutic.  Dooms  Day349  01:14, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi! I just noticed this essay, and I think that if we modify it enough, it can become a Wikipedia policy. Considering the content currently on the page, it is clear that this statement encourages indifference towards conflicts, which would be great to have in Wikipedia. Apathy would be the key to tranquility in the community.--<font color="blue" face="comic sans ms">Ed  <font color="maroon" face="comic sans ms">¿Cómo estás? 04:34, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I can just imagine the misapplications now...
 * "Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. However, our policies state that you are not allowed to care about anything. Please cease arguing your point, as any further arguing will be regarded as disruptive, and may cause you to be blocked."
 * -Amarkov moo! 04:40, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Rename to Don't give a damn?
I'm sure someone has raised this. Why not change fuck to damn or something? I know Wikipedia is not censored, but that should only be used when there's no reasonable alternative to inclusion, and here there most certainly is. 129.98.211.63 21:58, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * First off, we most certainly should not say that we may only censor things when there is no reasonable alternative. The point is that our content is not affected by subjective standards of offensiveness, not that it's affected when there's a reasonable alternative. Second, that would be considerably less funny, and it would come off as a stupid quote, so it's not all that much of a reasonable alternative. And lastly, I question how much less offensive "damn" is. -Amarkov moo! 02:29, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Much. -Yancyfry

"Damn" doesn't get the point across. If I could, I would rename it to "Don't give a fucking shit."--WaltCip 13:59, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Uh, "damn" could actually be considered more offensive... it has other connotations as well (think "to damn" someone). How about we forget about the censorship altogether, and we won't have to deal with questions like that? Besides, if you're gonna curse, why not go for first place? Epthorn 13:26, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thanks to all the people who gave enough of a fuck to save this essay from the grave. You saved my little yellow userbox. Also, you've made this essay completely awesome. Seriously, Wiki-buddhism was an awesome idea. I love it. Logical2uTalk 00:59, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Aww, fuck it.
Decent page. :-) &mdash;  Rickyrab | Talk 14:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Irony
Is anybody else highly amused by the heated discussions on this page? Personally, I don't give a fuck if they rename/delete/whatever this article. I like it, but somehow fighting for its existence or name just seems... self-defeating. Now, if you'll excuse me, I need to go take my Fukitol -FunnyMan 06:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * AN INSTANCE OF IDEOLOGY MAKING PEOPLE CARE ENTIRELY TOO MUCH, WOULDN'T YOU SAY? :o -- The Prophet Wiz ard of the Cray  on Cake  02:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * In some cases like this, I'm just tempted to shove reality into place...

THE ARGUMENT MATTERS VERY LITTLE. VERY FEW PEOPLE KNOW, OR CARE, WHAT A PARTICULAR ESSAY ON WIKIPEDIA IS TITLED. IT IS NOT WORTH GETTING ANGRY ABOUT.
 * Yay. -Amarkov moo! 02:24, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

But if you're not supposed to give a fuck about anything, then why are you all giving a fuck about this essay?--<font color="blue" face="comic sans ms">Ed  <font color="maroon" face="comic sans ms">¿Cómo estás? 02:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I personally don't. Apathy doesn't preclude arguments, so long as you stop arguing when you don't want to anymore. -Amarkov moo! 02:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

userbox up for speedy deletion.. (this page MfD)
... this speedy deletion bid brought to you by the same editor who just put WP:DGAF up for MfD, but then immediately retracted the MfD.. Ling.Nut 04:16, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Help vote against creeping b anality!
 * at Template:User DGAF2 " This page may meet Wikipedia’s criteria for speedy deletion. The given reason is: "Userboxes must not be intentionally inflammatory or divisive."
 * Comment here: Template talk:User DGAF2. Ling.Nut 04:07, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

DGAF templates up for deletion... again ... and snowball keep.
See Templates for deletion/Log/2007 August 19. Ling.Nut 16:43, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Whoooooosh......Result was snowball keep. Ttiotsw 04:07, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

It is not an article
In response to the several comments on this talk page, this is not an article, it is an essay. It even has a notice at the top stating so. — metaprimer (talk) 16:44, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

A little credit where it is due
I simply felt like expressing my applaud for the author and editors who created, maintain, and voted to support this essay on Wikipedia. This is the very best way to address real issues in a true don't give a fuck manner. It's funny, but if the very people who oppose this essay would just not give a fuck and contribute to articles, fight vandals, or review the backlog like the majority of Wikipedians, this article could be read in piece without the constant struggle. Oh, and having taken debate 101, I know the first response to this statement is going to be "if you didn't give a fuck you wouldn't have taken the time to write this." Well, you're wrong; I would like to not give a fuck in peace and comfort but it's difficult when I notice all the heated opposition on the essay's talk page. If you didn't give a fuck, I wouldn't either. After all, it takes two to fuck.  Digital <sup style="color:#20038A;">Ninja  03:44, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. :) -- The Prophet Wiz ard of the Cray on Cake  01:22, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I love this essay and the template
It makes some very valid points. I was wondering if we could have a list at the bottom of who has linked to it, so we can identify fellow DGAFers? Me rk  i  n  s  m  um  00:41, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I wholeheartedly agree. I possess much more wikihappiness when I'm embracing this principle then when I'm not. Rray (talk) 01:22, 7 December 2007 (UTC)