Talk:Cocksucker

	Human sexuality portal This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality articles
	This redirect has been marked as needing immediate attention.

This page has been transwikied to Wiktionary.
The article has content that is useful at Wiktionary. Therefore the article can be found at either here or here (logs 1 logs 2.)
Note: This means that the article has been copied to the Wiktionary Transwiki namespace for evaluation and formatting. It does not mean that the article is in the Wiktionary main namespace, or that it has been removed from Wikipedia's. Furthermore, the Wiktionarians might delete the article from Wiktionary if they do not find it to be appropriate for the Wiktionary.
Removing this tag will usually trigger CopyToWiktionaryBot to re-transwiki the entry. This article should have been removed from Category:Copy to Wiktionary and should not be re-added there.

[Untitled][edit]

I suggest merging into Seven dirty words. Hyacinth 20:43, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree, added the tag! --Dmcdevit 22:48, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Old[edit]

See: User:Hyacinth/Style guide.Hyacinth

As bad as motherfucker?[edit]

I'm inclined to disagree. I'm open about "foul" language, but purely in terms of ranking, I'd be more "insulted" by cunt or piece of shit, or motherfucker than cocksucker. Cocksucker is like a light insult. Lockeownzj00 19:31, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Depends. If used in an anti-gay context (used with its literal meaning cock sucker) it becomes much more offensive. Hyacinth 20:41, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I would like to see this page removed. There is no reason for this to be here and just leaves a door wide open for trolls and vandals. I flagged it for deletion and my revision was reverted by ClueBot NG. Still dont think this, or the merger page are really necessary and would like to see them deleted. Lcsoman0117 (my talkpage) 05:53, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Cocksucker" should have its own article[edit]

Like the other 7 dirty ones, it can be used in a variety of contextsSmiloid (talk) 08:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect for discussion?[edit]

I think that this article should soft-redirect to Wiktionary instead of redirecting to its literal meaning. Bwrs (talk) 23:47, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 18 December 2013 Suggestion[edit]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Request speedy deletion

Lcsoman0117 (my talkpage) 05:41, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: Speedy deletion is only granted in very specific cases, delineated at WP:CSD. I see no grounds for speedy deletion of this page. If you think a page should be deleted, I suggest you read the guide to deletion for further information - both as to Wikipedia's deletion policy and the processes by which deletion should be requested. --ElHef (Meep?) 02:24, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Dicksucker#Cocksucker and dicksucker are synonyms for fellatio?[edit]

Johnsoniensis, regarding this revert, there is a discussion about it at Talk:Dicksucker#Cocksucker and dicksucker are synonyms for fellatio?. Something to keep in mind is what Johnuniq stated in that discussion. Flyer22 (talk) 03:14, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]