Wikipedia talk:Don't be inconsiderate

message: This is slight revision of the Wikipedia:Don't be a dick essay which was created by Phil Sandifer Jan 2005 and became a popular if controversial essay. The essay was soon moved off Wikipedia to Meta, and there have been occasional discussions related to either removing the soft redirect or renaming the essay because of the use of language. The philosophy of the essay is widely appreciated, though the title and the language have led to the philosphy being undermined and the essay being misused as an insult masquerading as reference to Wikipedian policy. In addition to the shock and disquiet of the use of a juvenile insult to convey a meaningful and considerate philosophy, there is the vagueness of the expression itself, especially in countries outside of the USA where "dick" has a different meaning - in the UK for example, the slang "dick" when applied to a person means a contemptible person rather than an abrasive or inconsiderate person as understood in the USA. The essay is largely as I found it on Meta, though with the word "dick" replaced with "inconsiderate", and some links removed. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 10:11, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's strange how just changing one word can make such a vast improvement. I think this essay deserves wider recognition - I would strongly support replacing WP:DICK with it, both here and on Meta. Terraxos 23:57, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

message: There is no point keeping the both, as they both contribute the same meaning, but especially because one of them can be seen as so controversial, while this one is completely neutral. There is no need to continue arguing when this perfectly acceptable solution has been provided.
All those in favour of deleting WP:Don't be a dick, or at least redirecting it to this page?
Delete the other article, and in fact I personally do not even suggest including a redirect, as I do not think the phrase "Don't be a dick" is helpful to keep in any way. However, that is not the most important part, the main area of concern is that the other page is deleted in some way to make way for this new article. Thanks 89.242.241.209 (talk) 10:20, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yes I support replacing the other article with this one. 

message: I was reading policies and guidelines and stumbled across this.  What if an editor (like myself) is autistic, and as a consequence of his situation, has no intuitive sense for tact?  I mean, certainly, I try to have tact, but I'm really bad at it. - Gilgamesh (talk) 13:52, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As it happens 142.196.215.32, you're the one being tactless and inconsiderate here. benzband (talk) 15:08, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tactlessness 

message: The big problem, as I see it, with both this and its "ancestor", is the lack of definition, supposedly "deliberate". With no definition it does not help in getting the person to know exactly what it is they are doing wrong, or even if they really are doing wrong at all (i.e. in how much good faith are the accusations being made in). If they do not know what they are doing wrong, they cannot remedy it. mike4ty4 (talk) mike4ty4 (talk) 23:56, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The definition is in the essay: "If a significant number of reasonable people suggest, whether bluntly or politely, that you are being inconsiderate, the odds are good that you are not entirely in the right." SilkTork ✔Tea time 16:32, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  The big problem