I didn't intend to, that's for sure... <grin>; but I figured that both these stubs and the arbcom elections are just too important to let go of. Guys, thanks very much for the support and BT, thanks for the ottoman. I'll put it to good use, promise. Really gone now, I hope. — mark ✎ 16:09, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
You may wish to review your recent votes for Arbitrators to ensure you have placed a signature by your vote. See you 'round the wiki! Hamster Sandwich 09:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi. I'm too much of a newb to be sure, but I think I subscribe to 1RR rather than 3RR. One revert is enough for me... I talked to Sean, seemed to reach an agreement, tried to make a good change, but since you reverted it, that suggests it wasn't that good. No offense taken whatsoever. All the best. ++ Lar: t/ c 10:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
You commented on Kelly Martin's second RfC. it is up for archival. you may vote at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Kelly_Martin#Archiving_this_RfC. CastAStone| (talk) 03:38, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi, one or both of the following situations applies to you, and you may therefore be interested in related discussions.
You may also be interested in a discussion of whether or not the entire text of a whole bible chapter should be contained in the 6 articles concerning those specific chapters, and whether or not they should only use the translations favoured by fundamentalists. This is being discussed at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Whole bible chapter text.
-- Victim of signature fascism | Don't forget to vote in the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee elections 17:58, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Greetings, Mark. I do see your concerns; I'm striking my votes for now while I reconsider, as I only weakly supported the remedy in the first place. I do think Xed's abrasive and snide behavior is unacceptable; part of what I have to go on is also correspondence that I cannot publicly comment upon and it hasn't made me hopeful that a parole will be effective. However, your dissatisfaction with this gives me pause, particularly as I trust your judgment and you're one of the primary people working with him. I've struck my votes, both for the remedy and for closing, for now while I reconsider; I don't promise that I will ultimately change it, but I will promise to look again. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 21:51, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi, Mark. I hope you're back from your Break (I didn't look into what was going on). My question is simple compared to all of the arbitration complexity. I want to start a discussion about transcription of Ethiopian names (people and places) in articles that are not about the languages, and I've written some stuff about this. The problem is I don't know where to start the discussion. What would you suggest? Or should I put links to it in various places? -- MikeGasser (talk) 00:50, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Dear Mark Dingemanse:
Recalling the BB69 matter back in December, a somewhat interesting discourse (with, shall we say, some "similarities") has been developing with an editor named "Xode" at the discussion page Talk:United States Dollar at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:United_States_dollar#Article_neutrality_and_factuality_dispute
under the heading for Factuality Dispute. I am in no way comparing Xode's conduct to the outrageous behavior of BB69. The similarity lies in part in the way certain editors seem to be on a "mission" to educate everyone on what they perceive as some great injustice and, I argue, want to use Wikipedia as a soapbox as part of that mission. When you see the materials Xode is promoting regarding the Federal Reserve and the banking system and compare them to the tax protester rhetoric, I think you'll know exactly what is going on. Your input on that Talk page would bring a lot to the table! Xode's User Talk page is interesting too. Yours, Famspear 22:28, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi Mark, Ish is currently up at RFA and running into some choppy water because of a really low use of edit summaries. I've crossed paths with him a couple of times (unusual at RFA these days for me) but have gone neutral because I find a lack of edit summaries really annoying. I seem to be one of the few voters that actually had developed a first impression before the RFA. He edits in your linguistics circles and you may have developed an actual opinion. If you wish, a knowledgeable vote or comment may be enough to push it either way. Cheers, Banyan Tree 14:58, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Many thanks for that. You're certainly not late to the party - I'm not going to move on this for another few weeks, to get in as many views as poss. Cheers, JackyR 21:53, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed you signed up as a member of the Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team, which is looking to identify quality articles in Wikipedia for future publication on CD or paper. Recently, a 1.0 Collaboration of the Week was created to work on essential topics that are in need of improvement, which will ultimately go in a release version of Wikipedia. You can help by voting, contributing to an article, or simply making a comment. Thank you for your support. :) Gflores Talk 08:04, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Ok thanks :) -- Pixeltoo 15:37, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
-- Gurubrahma 11:05, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
-- Gurubrahma 05:25, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
I granted you the rights. Take care, Romihaitza 14:35, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Don't know if you remember me, Mark, but I was one of the "fallouts" from the userbox debaucle. Like you, I tried to stay away, but have decided to come back, albeit carefully and slightly grudgingly. -- Joe Sewell ( talk) 17:41, 13 February 2006 (UTC)