User talk:M. Dingemanse/Archive10

EDIT

My talk archives

Archive 1 (back to August 2004)
Archive 2 (October - December 2004)
Archive 3 (January - February 2005)
Archive 4 (March 2005)
Archive 5 (April - May 2005)
Archive 6 (June 2005)
Archive 7 (July - August 2005)
Archive 8 (September - October 2005)
Archive 9 (November - December 2005)
Archive 10 (January - February 2006)
Archive 11 (March - April 2006)
Archive 12 (May - August 2006)
Archive 13 (September - October 2006)
Archive 14 (November 2006 - January 2007)
Archive 15 (February 2007 - onward)

Your wikibreak

I, BanyanTree, give you this ottoman so you always have someplace where you can put your feet up and take a breather. - 06:18, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to hear that; hope you'll come back soon. (And no, not only because I requested a map. ;)) Take care! —Nightstallion (?) 15:02, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry too to hear that you're taking a break: wikiocracy can get to us all! I hope your break is refreshing, ad that when you return you do so with renewed enthusiasm for the articles. --Gareth Hughes 15:59, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have a nice rest. --Ezeu 19:23, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I look forward to your return, have a good break! — Matt Crypto 19:26, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now, now - Mark. You shouldn't be running around voting in elections, editing RfCs and diving in to save language stubs on a break! <wagging finger> - Banyan Tree 06:18, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Does that mean you're back for good? (This time I'm asking because of the map. ;)) —Nightstallion (?) 17:09, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not. In fact, I'm trying hard to stay away, but I find it quite difficult to realize that the universe doesn't revolve around me. I will get to the map in due time. — mark ✎ 11:40, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's purr-fectly fine, take your time. Thanks a lot! —Nightstallion (?) 12:52, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Signature?

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)[reply]

Thanks for notifying me. It turned out to be only one vote missing a sig. Thanks, — mark ✎ 11:39, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Kelly Martin

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)[reply]

Thanks for coming by. I removed that section because it was too clearly an invitation to oppose KM's arbitratorship, whether it was intended to be so or not. Personally I don't even think her actions in the userbox incident have much to do with arbitration capacities, but regardless, the invitation to the arbcom elections is above everyone's watchlist so it's hard to come up with a good faith interpretation of that message. Only after my removal I saw that there had been some discussion about the issue already, but I have not been reverted until now. — mark ✎ 16:16, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RFC/KM

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)[reply]

I see it's been closed. Good. — mark ✎ 11:39, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Articles For Deletion

Hi, one or both of the following situations applies to you, and you may therefore be interested in related discussions.

You expressed an opinion about the proposed deletion of an article concerning one of the first 200 verses of the Gospel of Matthew. Would you therefore like to join a centralised discussion about the other 199 articles at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/200 verses of Matthew
You expressed an opinion about the proposed deletion of an article concerning one of the first 19 verses of the 20th Chapter of the Gospel of John. Would you therefore like to join a centralised discussion about the other 18 articles at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Verses of John 20

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)[reply]

Not now, unfortunately. — mark ✎ 11:39, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Xed

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)[reply]

Thank you, Kat, for reconsidering. I have never said that Xed's behaviour was without problems (in fact I have told him to avoid areas where the editing gets hot), but I am glad that you recognize that I am one of several editors that have worked with him quite extensively (and in a very agreeable manner). One of the problems of the Xed 2 case is that the people who have worked productively with him (mainly editors active on WP:CSB) don't like to spend much time in the Wikipedia namespace, whereas the prosecutor knows just too well how to play the game.

I'm still on wikibreak, but I'll tune in now and then to see if things are getting somewhere. — mark ✎ 10:15, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot something. You say part of what I have to go on is also correspondence that I cannot publicly comment upon. This looks like the same thing Fred hinted on over at the /Proposed decision talk page. It sounds worrying. I echo Derex's reply to this point on your talk: "there really ought to be transparency to arbcom decisions, and if for some reason that can't be done, Jimbo should just make the call himself in private". — mark ✎ 10:23, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ethiopian transcription

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)[reply]

Hi Mike, I have put my two cents in on your talk since Mark appears to taking that breather. - Banyan Tree 01:13, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for helping out, BT. And Mike, I'm glad that you didn't look into it. I assure you that your time is much better spent. — mark ✎ 10:15, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Federal Reserve System and the US Dollar

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)[reply]

Hi Famspear. Unfortunately, I have had my share of disputes lately; I have decided to focus on contributing content and to avoid any stressfull disputes for the time to come. Thanks for understanding, — mark ✎ 22:40, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ish ishwar's RFA

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)[reply]

Had noticed it, was planning to put in a vote, but I found it quite a difficult case. I'll explain why at the RFA. Thanks for noting! — mark ✎ 22:04, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

African language names

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)[reply]

(reference: style for African language names) — mark ✎ 15:59, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1.0 Collaboration of the Week

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)[reply]

Onomatopoeia

Ok thanks :) -- Pixeltoo 15:37, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's OK! (reference: nice catch) — mark ✎ 16:02, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Ekoti language, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--Gurubrahma 11:05, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Sonjo language, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--Gurubrahma 05:25, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yo adminship

I granted you the rights. Take care, Romihaitza 14:35, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That was fast! Thank you! — mark ✎ 17:34, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But the Joe came back...

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)[reply]