Wiktionary:Votes/2010-06/Deleting I have a big penis

Hello, you have come here looking for the meaning of the word Wiktionary:Votes/2010-06/Deleting I have a big penis. In DICTIOUS you will not only get to know all the dictionary meanings for the word Wiktionary:Votes/2010-06/Deleting I have a big penis, but we will also tell you about its etymology, its characteristics and you will know how to say Wiktionary:Votes/2010-06/Deleting I have a big penis in singular and plural. Everything you need to know about the word Wiktionary:Votes/2010-06/Deleting I have a big penis you have here. The definition of the word Wiktionary:Votes/2010-06/Deleting I have a big penis will help you to be more precise and correct when speaking or writing your texts. Knowing the definition ofWiktionary:Votes/2010-06/Deleting I have a big penis, as well as those of other words, enriches your vocabulary and provides you with more and better linguistic resources.

Deleting I have a big penis

  • Vote starts: instantly
  • Vote ends: 24:00, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Support

  1. Support Conrad.Irwin 21:45, 14 June 2010 (UTC) Both personally, and because that's what the RFD suggests. Conrad.Irwin 21:45, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
  2. Support Neskaya … gawonisgv? 21:45, 14 June 2010 (UTC) So that it goes away. --Neskaya … gawonisgv? 21:45, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
  3. Support Ƿidsiþ 08:35, 15 June 2010 (UTC) but I really hope we don't have to have a vote every time we can't reach consensus in RFD. Ƿidsiþ 08:35, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
  4. Support SemperBlotto 08:40, 15 June 2010 (UTC) useless sum of parts phrase
  5. Support —Stephen 17:29, 15 June 2010 (UTC) I don’t see any use for this. It’s not even what a native would say, unless maybe on television. When talking among ourselves in private, we do not refer to that organ as a penis. It’s a cock, a dick, a prick, a wienie, a schlong, a lizard, a hose, or some euphemism like Mr. Wiggley or Junior...but never the Latin term except where medical terminology would be called for. So this isn’t even idiomatic. (Before someone tries to correct it, the verb is wrong, too.)
  6. Support Razorflame 17:38, 15 June 2010 (UTC) per the reasons given on the RFD. Razorflame 17:38, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
  7. per Widsith. Just as entries on RFD are kept if there's no consensus, so should this vote be deemed to fail if there's no consensus. As the entry currently is redlinked, that means that a lack of consensus in this vote will actually effect something, an unusual state of affairs for an enwikt vote.​—msh210℠ 18:26, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
  8. Support Ultimateria 22:51, 15 June 2010 (UTC) I'm proud to be a part of the "tyranny of the majority".
  9. Support because of the RFD debate. --Bequw → τ 03:33, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
  10. Support Robert Ullmann 06:08, 16 June 2010 (UTC) this has to be voted on? this is a "shoot on sight" Robert Ullmann 06:08, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
  11. Support Dan Polansky 11:46, 16 June 2010 (UTC) (a) Per the result of the RFD on this phrase, the result that is unequivocal and makes this vote superflous. (b) Per the specific reasons given at RFD, especially the rareness of the phrase as measured by Google books hits. I think this vote should have never been created, but, given it has already been created, I am voting in it lest the phrase remains undeleted. --Dan Polansky 11:46, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
  12. Support - note, I suppose this vote needs at least 70% to pass, as usual? Mglovesfun (talk) 11:53, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
    Given the importance of the issue, I'd expect a 75% supermajority. --Vahagn Petrosyan 12:38, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
    Nonsense, 70% is more than sufficient. One of Vahag's jokes, I suppose. --Dan Polansky 13:17, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
    We actually have no policy anywhere that says that. Usually, two thirds is considered sufficient. -- Prince Kassad 16:28, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
    Absence of written policy is not absence of common practice. Two thirds has been considered insufficient in some past votes: Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2009-03/Removing_vote_requirements_for_policy_changes. But 75% is IMHO an overkill. I am not against 66% (2/3), but the rate that people have been most discussing was 70% as far as I remember, or like 70-75% with the discretion of the closing admin to choose the rate; some have even mentioned 80%. I don't recall people proposing 66%, other than Mglovesfun at some point in Beer parlour, with some people disagreeing. But, admittedly, the vote that I have mentioned was like a change in constitution, which may be in part why people were inclined to go for the higher threshold of 70%, and hesitated to close the vote as "passes". I have provided almost no evidence, and I don't feel like searching through archives, so maybe 66% has been actually used: anyone has hyperlinks? --Dan Polansky 17:19, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
  13. Support   AugPi 16:41, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
  14. Support --Makaokalani 12:51, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
  15. Delete' Obscene, and not sure any of the "I have a..." belong Purplebackpack89 (Notes Taken) (Locker) 05:06, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
  16. Support —RuakhTALK 17:21, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
  17. Support Visviva 18:58, 23 June 2010 (UTC) Under protest, as this vote is a) stupid on its face, and b) invalid, as the term in question has long since failed its RFD. -- Visviva 18:58, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
    Support Phrasebook criteria needed. I expect that the subject matter will be covered if we can ever get to them. I would not support using sex tourism as the unifying concept for the trial version of phrasebook without a vote on that very point. DCDuring TALK 12:20, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
  18. Support Diego Grez 20:40, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
  19. Support, per SemperBlotto. bd2412 T 23:37, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Very strong oppose I've already given all my reasons, and even though mine are based in logic instead of personal anti-vulgarity issues, nobody's responded to them, so I won't regurgitate them right now. :p — opiaterein — 21:56, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
  2. Strong oppose This mob mentality of solving issues is very disturbing. --Ivan Štambuk 22:05, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Daniel. 22:20, 14 June 2010 (UTC) I agree with Opiaterein on the importance of logical arguments. --Daniel. 22:20, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
  4. Oppose --Vahagn Petrosyan 09:36, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
  5. Oppose --Maria Sieglinda von Nudeldorf 21:07, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
  6. Weak Oppose, because the mob mentality repugns me and because I favour moving all phrasebook entries out of the main namespace or their deletion, but not this approach applied solely to this particular entry, for the sake of cohærence. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 19:58, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
  7. strong oppose. This is the wrong way to go about deleting things that aren't liked. Secondly, this is a phrasebook entry, (which should be moved out of the main namespace) and we should refrain from deleting things until we have an agreed CFI for phrasebook entries. Thryduulf (talk) 21:52, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
    If you oppose deletion until we have a PB CFI would also oppose creation? I ask because, though I like the idea of moratoriums, I think in our environment they are unenforceable. --Bequw → τ 03:00, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
    Re "we should refrain from deleting things until we have an agreed CFI for phrasebook entries": Should I be allowed to create "I am hungry, and have no food", "this is the wrong way of doing things", "I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about" or "what's the matter with people today", and then claim that these are phrasebook entries, and that they should not be deleted until we arrive at phrasebook CFI? --Dan Polansky 08:12, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
    This would be a rather defiant approach, Dan. One more conducive to concurrence would be to contrive a set of rules, CFI, which would be accepted through a vote, so that the admissibility of each single phrasebook entry can be appraised by them. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 08:31, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
    Personally I don't think we should be creating any phrasebook entries until we have the namespace set up and a CFI agreed, but that's not a reason to delete existing entries (and is beyond the scope of this vote). Thryduulf (talk) 10:40, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
    So you think that these entries should not be created, but you are unwilling to undo their recent creation, unwilling to undo an action that you think should not be performed. Not that I quite understand. I doubt that there is going to be a consensus to move the phrasebook out of the mainspace. --Dan Polansky 13:35, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
    Not everyone wants them out of the main namespace, but it's clear that they should be marked as being separate from main dictionary entries, which is why we made a little yellow phrasebook banner. — opiaterein — 14:24, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
    That is not clear at all, and you have nothing like a consensual support for your hideous banner. --Dan Polansky 15:04, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
    Hah, you're a dick! ^_^ It's clear you're favoring emotion of reason, so I'm not going to bother discussing ...anything with you. — opiaterein — 15:38, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
    You should be banned, or at least desysopped. --Dan Polansky 15:57, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
    Join the club, Dan. Razorflame 16:05, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
    Razorflame and Opi are alike in many ways, including this one. In both cases, it's marginal whether they do more good than harm. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:10, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
    If you ban me, who else is going to add Maltese? — opiaterein — 16:41, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
    Ha, don't make me laugh. :P Get back to work on water. — opiaterein — 19:53, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
  8. It makes sense to abstain from voting on specific entries like this except that it is a rather exceptional situation, so just please don't make a habit of it. Weak oppose yet at the same time hear me when I say that the default action for vulgar content should be to remove it until the criteria (for phrasebook entries in this case) are clearer on what should and should not be included. The reason is that entries like this tend to be disruptive and open the door for a greater ratio of such contributions, creating an overall negative result. Therefore I would not count my vote unless it were part of a supermajority that decided to keep (which in this vote is to oppose for some reason). However, when the criteria are decided, I do not believe that any need for censorship will play a deciding role, except perhaps as with images where we elect the least offensive form. My opinion is thus formed judging on the merits, this being the least offensive form of the concept it captures (though the definition doesn't really add much), and one that could potentially prove useful as a phrasebook entry, which should not be banned merely for its vulgarity. DAVilla 06:44, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Abstain

  1. Abstain This vote is beyond ridiculous, and clearly demonstrates our declining ability to.....well...write a dictionary. Why are we having a vote over a single rfd? Ric and Ivan have both raised some excellent points, namely that we don't censor here, and that, in the absence of any clearly defined phrasebook policy, this entry has as much merit as any other phrasebook entry. They are, of course, being ignored by the community at large, namely because almost everything to come out of their mouths in the past few months has been insults and rabble-rousing. Quite frankly, I don't feel terribly sorry for them. That being said, the entry is of limited value, and I think it should, eventually, get deleted. But this is not the way. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 22:23, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
    The fact that we don't have formalized criteria doesn't mean that there aren't ways of distinguishing entries worth keeping from ones that aren't. I and others have put forward several such measures -- presence in real phrasebooks, status as "survival language" ( = likelihood that someone would actually need to say it), raw frequency. No criteria have thus far been put forward that would admit this particular phrase without admitting an arbitrarily large number of others that are clearly without merit. That's the bottom line: if we can't draw a line that includes this entry while excluding obvious drek, then the only tenable conclusion is that the entry is drek. Such arguments as have been put forward in favor of the entry have varied from silly to ad hominem. The consensus -- and by our normal standards it certainly is one -- for deletion in the RFD discussion reflects the fact that no coherent arguments have been made in this entry's defense. This present vote is too stupid to participate in, but the deletion seems to me to have been exactly the right course of action. -- Visviva 03:33, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
    Can you give examples of such "arbitrarily large number of others that are clearly without merit" ? Nobody mentioned this as an argument on RFD. --Ivan Štambuk 06:18, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
    Isn't this the basic issue with all Phrasebook entries? There are an arbitrary number of phrases for talking about one's genitalia, let alone one's body parts in general: "I have a tight vagina", "I have hairy balls", "My dick is 13.5 inches long", "My crotch itches, I think it might be herpes", "I have three testicles"; "I have long arms" and so forth. For me, personally, to take any arguments in favor of this or any other phrase (on any topic) seriously, they have to be arguments that apply to only a circumscribed set of phrases. -- Visviva 15:15, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
    On one note, I think you should vote support, and indicate clearly that you disagree with the creation of this vote, which you have already done. On another note, I see no declining ability to write a dictionary at all; we are doing a great job. This vote is a result of (a) opening the can of worms known as "phrasebook", and (b) a rash action of the Wiktionarian who has created this vote, spurred by (c) wheel warring at "I need a big penis". I too think that this vote should not have been created. --Dan Polansky 12:04, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
  2. Abstain. However, as a rhetorical aside to Visviva: we should allow other publishers to determine our censorship standards? The arguments presented appear prescriptivist, rather than descriptivist. - Amgine/talk 15:56, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
    (note 29 million+ hits for I have a 12" penis.)
    The search is pointless, as it fails to enclose the phrase in quotation marks. When I check the results of the search, I see that the search term is absent in them. This atempt to enclose the term in quotation marks yield mere 52,000 hits. --Dan Polansky 17:00, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
    Actually 9800; it is necessary to remove the inch mark. "I have a 12 inch penis" yields 18100. This phrase seems considerably more natural, perhaps even more "useful", but obviously it is too limited; maybe we could compromise on something like I have a LENGTH penis. -- Visviva 17:26, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
    I don't see how I have a LENGTH penis would be a desirable alternative, because we already have I, have, a and penis as entries that don't convey complete sentences. --Daniel. 17:43, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
    I don't think descriptivism is a tenable model for the phrasebook. It works for standard entries, because we aim to have an entry for every form of every word in every language, so -- as long as the wordness of a word is established -- the only issue is attestation. In contrast, we don't want, and cannot possibly have, an entry for every phrase in every language. So we need criteria that clearly distinguish between phrases that merit inclusion and those that don't. I don't think we should be enslaved to the criteria of other publishers, but they are one among several criteria that I think we should use to guide ourselves until such time as we establish criteria of our own. -- Visviva 17:26, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
  3. Abstain Equinox ◑ 17:19, 16 June 2010 (UTC) I want to see it gone but don't think that a vote on a specific term is a solution to the problem. Equinox ◑ 17:19, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
    Essentially no, because everytime this gets deleted per the consensus, someone restores it. So if/when this vote passes, how will that be different? Mglovesfun (talk) 10:54, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
    Personally, I undeleted it because the people who deleted it never responded to my arguments for keeping. They still haven't. Not one of them. So I ignored their deletion because they ignored everything I was saying. And... they still are, apparently. — opiaterein — 12:10, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
    You've made excellent arguments for the retention of this type of language. However, these arguments are somewhat beside the point since few of us object to sexual language in principle. However, you have not explained what makes this particular phrase special. Which means, so far, that there is nothing to respond to. -- Visviva 15:15, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
    I guess we can pass this to Semper who will then demote the admins ignoring the vote. Or so I guess. -- Prince Kassad 11:02, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
    If memory serves, crats do not actually have this power, only stewards do. Though it would be preferable if this little exercise in absurdism did not go that far. -- Visviva 15:15, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
    Due to a bug in the software, they do. I think it was on the GP a while ago. -- Prince Kassad 21:28, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
    Don't you think it would be a bit unethical for stewards to utilize powers resulting from a software glitch, that they were not originally intended to have? --Ivan Štambuk 21:52, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
    A "bug"? This is not a bug. Wiktionary, like many other wikis, specifically allows 'crats to desysop. It's part of their GroupRights. There is no reason to change it. The discussion you're referring to is Wiktionary:Grease_pit_archive/2010/March#Excess_power_for_a_bureaucrat. --Yair rand (talk) 21:59, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
    Note that this entry currently is deleted, and was deleted (repeatedly) shortly before and after the vote was started. It was also repeatedly deleted while the RFD was still ongoing. If anyone, it is the deletionists that are being overly aggressive with delete first - ask questions later attitude. I cannot comprehend why of 1.7 million entries it's this one that is getting all that negative attention, and folks can't stand it being in the main namespace even for a single day. --Ivan Štambuk 21:38, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
    Yes, entries like cumdumpster are much more acceptable. :) — opiaterein — 21:46, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
    It's a word; if there was a space in there, it would still be idiomatic, and qualify as a word. We deal in words here. Would we be justified in having an entry on the phrase, "I am a cumdumpster"? bd2412 T 23:41, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
  4. Abstain —Internoob (Disc•Cont) 21:13, 17 June 2010 (UTC) I want to defer this until we get a phrasebook CFI to evaluate it by.

Decision

17–8–4 is 68%, no consensus, so this is kept, as with all RFDs that reach no consensus.​—msh210℠ (talk) 05:37, 1 July 2010 (UTC) Striking this closure; see below.​—msh210℠ (talk) 06:48, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Victory! --Vahagn Petrosyan 06:39, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
I think that the entry should be kept deleted nevertheless, given all the controversy and stuff.. --Ivan Štambuk 07:34, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Especially since it’s not idiomatic English. —Stephen 15:38, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm probably too verbose. As I tried to explain, I did not intend my vote to count except to form a supermajority of opposition. This yields 17-7-5 or 71% in which case the motion passes and entry is to remain deleted. DAVilla 04:16, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
I apologize. You're absolutely correct. I counted the votes and merely glanced at the text before deciding the vote, and I totally missed your point. Now striking my closure above.​—msh210℠ (talk) 06:48, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

68% is more than enough for this vote to pass. --Neskaya … gawonisgv? 04:14, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Did you do the math yourself? Guess not... — opiaterein — 04:47, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Actually, I looked at the percentage that msh210 cited. Go figure. --Neskaya … gawonisgv? 04:39, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay, this vote is plain ridiculous. Some of the support was under protest of the vote, and some was due to the fact that the title of the entry is not the most commonly used form, and I'm pretty sure some people didn't understand what was being voted on. I suggest that we drop the issue, and Opiaterein moves the entry to a better name, also moving similar entries to more correct names. --Yair rand (talk) 04:59, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

But Opiaterein is a native speaker of English. How could he possibly have entitled the entry amiss? The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 05:54, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
I didn't start the entry, and I didn't move it to I've got a big dick/I've got a big cock because I wanted a less vulgar entry first. — opiaterein — 13:45, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


Vote passes, and entry will be redeleted. Per DAVilla's statement, 17-7-5 yields 70.8% support for deletion, which means that this vote clearly passes. --Neskaya … gawonisgv? 18:43, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Anyone who actually reads 17-7-5 and knows math knows that 17-7-5 indicates 58.62% support for deleting. If it gets deleted again, I will give a day ban to the deleter and restore it. — opiaterein — 19:00, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
All recent votes that I can recall did not count abstains in the total. See the Decision sections of, e.g., Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2010-05/Names of specific entities and Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2010-01/New blocking policy.​—msh210℠ (talk) 19:06, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
All this is irrelevant, it failed RFD before this vote ended. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:07, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
If we're not going to count abstain votes, we shouldn't even allow them. Ridiculousness. — opiaterein — 19:09, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
We allow people to edit the talk page. Should we count that as well? Mglovesfun (talk) 19:12, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
I can't respond to that without directly insulting you. — opiaterein — 19:14, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
You can't respond to anything without insulting someone. That's why you got blocked for six months. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:16, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
I can respond to anything sensible. Neskaya didn't block me for 6 months for being insulting, she blocked me because she doesn't like the fact that I'm not going to accept the manipulation of fact to push POV. — opiaterein — 19:18, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
An abstention counts towards quorum and states one neither supports nor opposes the vote (rather than just not voting at all which could be confused with ignorance or undecidedness). All vote passing percentages are done S/(S+O). You'll have to get community consensus behind changing that. --Bequw → τ 19:32, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. (And one could just as well say, "If we're going to count abstain votes as oppose votes, we shouldn't even allow them to be put in a separate section.") —RuakhTALK 19:39, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
And of course, it looks horrible on the state of the project when the response to a closure of a vote is an ad hominem insult. --Neskaya … gawonisgv? 05:57, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm not saying to count abstain votes as oppose, but if 17 people vote abstain, 7 vote support and 2 vote oppose, does the vote pass? Does this not seem counter-intuitive to anyone else? — opiaterein — 19:48, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Actually, more than 300,000 people abstain in every one of our votes. (Well, no. That's the number of registered users, not the number of registered users who meet the eligibility requirement to vote. But you get my point, I think.)​—msh210℠ (talk) 19:57, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
To my knowledge this has not happened nor is it likely to happen (in the real world politicians abstain for a number of reasons that aren't relevant here). We'll probably have to cross that bridge when we come to it. --Bequw → τ 20:00, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
If that many people abstain, then it probably suggests that there's a problem with the vote; but saying "O.K., vote fails" is not a way to address that problem. —RuakhTALK 20:30, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Wikious
Boobota
Sagapedia