User talk:Mr. Magoo and McBarker

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Nomination of Climate Action Plan for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Climate Action Plan is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Climate Action Plan until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Jm (talk | contribs) 16:10, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Since you contributed to the discussion over at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Climate action, I wanted to ping you and let you know that your input would be valued. I am posting this notice on the talk page for every editor who has contributed to that discussion and the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Avoiding dangerous climate change, regardless of their vote or apparent viewpoint. 16:16, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Primarily

Magoo, 'primarily' refers to how often it's reported on. That is, the overwhelming number of mentions are about the pejorative usage. That doesn't necessarily mean that's the primary way the word is used. It just means that it's what's reported on. valereee (talk) 19:11, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Sorry, but what exactly do you mean? You've lost me. I don't think our sources even mention the word pejorative. What mentions? We have mentions of neither primarily nor pejorative, really. I think in the past I saw a third source for derogatory. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 19:14, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Magoo, what I mean is that while there's at least an OR argument to be made that most of the time when the term "politically correct" pops up in news articles, it's referring to the pejorative or derogatory usage of the word. BUT, that doesn't mean that the word isn't used in other ways just as commonly. It just means that when it's used in other ways, no one is bothering to comment on it. Kind of like no one would comment on 'blue' referring to the color of the sky. It doesn't mean the sky isn't blue; it just means no one feels the need to point it out.
Re: pejorative vs. derogatory -- they're synonyms. http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/pejorative
valereee (talk) 19:20, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Can you pinpoint an article where it's used specifically as a pejorative towards somebody and not as a general criticism of some sort of restriction? Because the first article Google gave me was Kareem-Abdul Jabbar defending political correctness. I think it can get very vague. And at the talk page we've been down the synonym road before. I've used your argument. It doesn't work. It apparently has to be the exact word. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 19:26, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
No, it doesn't have the be the exact word. If anyone is telling you that, they're wrong, but I suspect a simple miscommunication. Wikipedia editors are encouraged to paraphrase, as trying to use the exact words often results in copyvio; a bigger problem is too-close paraphrasing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paraphrasing_of_copyrighted_material If a word is a close synonym without alternate definitions or connotations that could be confusing as to meaning, it's fine.valereee (talk) 19:42, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Butting in, only to say that no article exists on 'derogatory', therefore, if used, it would probably wiki-link to pejorative anyhow. For wholly trivial reasons (more used in UK and therefore I don't mis-spell it so often), I prefer 'derogatory'. Pincrete (talk) 21:43, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

Page China Business Network Weekly is finally removed. What a headache it was! Prof TPMS (talk) 15:43, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ  Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Narayani Zone
added links pointing to Bharatpur, Narayangarh, Alau, Jitpur and Rapti River
Surunga
added links pointing to Sarki, Rai, Ilam, Dharan and Magar
Mahakali Zone
added links pointing to Patan, Kanchanpur, Rajghat and Byans
Eastern Development Region, Nepal
added links pointing to Himalayan, Bhojpur and Likhu
Western Development Region, Nepal
added links pointing to Himalayan and Damodar
Far-Western Development Region, Nepal
added a link pointing to Himalayan
Janakpur Zone
added a link pointing to Matihani
Kosi Zone
added a link pointing to Tamar
Mid-Western Development Region, Nepal
added a link pointing to Rapti River
Sagarmatha Zone
added a link pointing to Salleri
Vz. 58
added a link pointing to M16A2

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 15:17, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Your post to my talk about DRN

Your post to my talk page is, in my opinion, neither civil nor constructive, and this reply is, among other things, a warning about incivility. However, I will try to address it civilly and constructively. You wrote: “You effectively killed a good article, along with Sandstein (AfD is typically one of the most effective cogs of Wikipedia, getting results in a week). It isn’t clear whether you mean Avoiding dangerous climate change or Climate change mitigation or something else. If you disagree with User:Sandstein’s close of the AFD as No Consensus, and you want his close changed, the place to request review is Deletion Review. If you disagree with my conclusion that DRN is not an appropriate venue to review an AFD, discuss at the dispute resolution talk page. You refer to someone as "the changer", and say that they are the only person at the talk page. It isn’t clear who you mean by "the changer". It also isn’t clear why you won’t try to discuss at the talk page. If you disagree with the close of the AFD, take it to DRV (which is not the same as DRN). If you want to discuss with the changer or anyone else, discuss on the talk page. If you merely want to complain, do it somewhere other than on my talk page. If you want advice about something else having to do with Wikipedia, visit the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:46, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

  • I think that line's more "uncouth" (a synonym), but I have to point out I didn't write that you did anything wrong. It describes why before and in that coarse line specifies "effectively". The language is indeed uncouth and I'm working on that aspect of me at the moment. I think it wouldn't have been seen as uncivil if I had just switched the word "killed" to something tame, safe for children? The reaction the last signpost got for using a single curse was similarly bewildering... I've got to get used to different people from different cultures. Lastly I want to point out that instead of responding there you came here to do what I did there, complain... --Mr. Magoo (talk) 04:00, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Sources for "Bear versus bull" (Biology)

Deletion review for Whirling

A pie for you!

A barnstar for you!

What happened?

So you decided to ignore me

A cupcake for you!

Eron Gjoni

Jatland

Speedy deletion nomination of Grace VanderWaal

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Rozen Maiden Straw Vote

August 2017

Some help

Trevor Graham

WP:AGF

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Input needed

Close paraphrasing

Trevor Graham

Talk:List of killed hip hop musicians

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

WP:MEDRS

Trevor Graham

Orphaned non-free image File:The logo of Video System.png

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Related Articles

Wikiwand AI