Open main menu



I think it's an excellent addition to the article, at about the roughly the length it is now...perhaps one sentence longer, if useful. Given that scope, the structure of the article, and the similarity of the situation to the loyalty-security review, I don't think it warrants its own section or subsection. I would keep it within the Loyalty-security reviews subsection. If you feel it's sufficiently different from the standard review situation, feel free to move it back down to the bottom of the subsection where you originally placed it (I moved it simply for flow and chronology) and expand a bit on the distinction. Best, Dan.—DCGeist (talk) 18:56, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Sure. Simply state the most relevant fact, whatever it is—the hearing received intensive press coverage, the decision became a matter of political debate for years afterward—with appropriate sourcing.—DCGeist (talk) 22:21, 1 July 2010 (UTC)


my comment here; if I'm mistaken, please clarify there. Cheers, Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:56, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that puts it well. Thanks. Figureofnine (talk) 14:07, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


<smiles> --Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 17:21, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Justin Bieber awardsEdit

Thanks for contributing to the merge discussion at Talk:List of awards and nominations received by Justin Bieber. If you have the chance, please comment on how the information should be merged to the Justin Bieber article. Regards, –Chase (talk) 21:59, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your attentionEdit

Regarding the mass suicide article in Demmin. I will state my summery within a day or so.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:24, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Your input was appreciated, we need to have a NPOV on the mass suicide article in Demmin. A third pair of eyes always helps to maintain that NPOV.--Woogie10w (talk) 00:41, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
I'll take another look. Figureofnine (talk) 01:12, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Please take another look at the the sources cited. The official German Police Report cited below specifically points out the exploitation of the 1945 events in Demmin by the Neo-Nazis. This official German Government document points out the threat posed by the Neo-Nazis in present day Germany, and in Demmin in particular. --Woogie10w (talk) 21:38, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

This Y-Tube clip is informative- You do not have to understand German to grasp the significance of this torch light parade that exploited the tragic events of 1945. The Police report cited above refers to this demonstration. This is why the German government wants to ban the Neo-Nazi marches in Demmin[1] --Woogie10w (talk) 21:45, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

To put this in an American context- Think of the KKK holding a rally and burning crosses.--Woogie10w (talk) 21:49, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
I appreciate what you're saying. I'd be more than happy to concur in adding reliably sourced stuff on what you're citing. However, Youtube videos, other than those made by professional news organizations, are not considered reliable sources. A German police report is a primary source, while secondary sources are preferred. This is just one editor's opinion and reading of the policy on reliable sources. If the consensus is to add, then by all means add it. I am just offering an opinion. Figureofnine (talk) 23:25, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
The German police report is a secondary source, a public document similar to a report by the FBI on right wing extremism in the US. I rest my case on this German government report which is meant for public consumption, the You-Tube clips would never be used on Wikipedia as a source, I inserted them to drive home the point that the radical right in Germany is a menace. Look at that torchlight parade in Demmin like those in 1933 Germany, the government in Germany today regards this as a real threat to the democratic system. IMO the article as it stands now pushes the radical right POV because it omits this modern day exploitation of the 1945 tragedy by the Neo-Nazis. Demmin 1945 has become a propaganda issue for the Neo-Nazis to exploit. We need to point this out, not suppress.--Woogie10w (talk) 00:08, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
I appreciate your concern about the slant of the article. If it the police report is a secondary source, then it is a proper source for this article. I have doubts about the Youtube video. However, it can be added as an external link at the least. Figureofnine (talk) 00:14, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Hey FoN, you pointed to this discussion at the article talk page, and I have a question for you there (and I would prefer an answer there rather than here, just for transparancy reasons). Here, let me just clarify that it is not a police report, but an intelligence report (irrelevant for the discussion, but just for accuracy), and that it does not make a connection between the suicides in 1945 and far right activities in 2009, but rather connects the mentioned far right activities in Demmin, Laage, Diekhof and Güstrow to the far-right's opposition to the 8 May festivities. Skäpperöd (talk) 09:27, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


Actually besides youtube we have several statements by party leaders of the German Pomerania region covered by reliable mass media sources. Including party leader of CDU in the whole German Pomeranian region [2],[3]. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 12:31, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

The website you cite is not mass media, its local impact is unknown and it has been criticized by ver.di to be a website run by a criminal among other things. The link to that is on the article talkpage, in the section dedicated to sourcing, and that is where this discussion should be. If you find actual mass media sources, go ahead and list them there instead of repeating everywhere that you have them. This should really not be discussed here, as well as the other section above. Skäpperöd (talk) 14:17, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
I think it would be best to discuss this on the article talk page. Figureofnine (talk) 14:53, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
My father who was a US GI in WW2 was the one encouraged me to learn German --Woogie10w (talk) 15:53, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Your father was a wise man. I wish I knew languages. Figureofnine (talk) 17:23, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

WQA filingEdit

I appreciate your input at the WQA. However, I've noticed that your comments have been phrased somewhat as generalities. I was wondering about your opinion on the specific post of (terrible!) advice made to User:Darkstar1st that prompted my "moron" response. There is absolutely zero doubt in my mind that this comment was posted by a sockpuppet of a long-time banned editor. In case you haven't read it yet, I copy his "advice" here for your convenience:

Excellent strategy. Preserve your edits so you don't get hit with a 3RR, let others take up the cause so it doesn't look like it's just you POV-pushing. It's a mind-numbingly repetitive strategy of BKH to canvass like-minded socialist robots and then they combine their attack in a cluster - like the cluster of broads [speaking of !votes on a recent RfC] on the talk page, and then make it look as though it's 'you, the little POV-pusher' against the world. His constant astonishment over the 'bizarre' nature of your edits is boring. He's invariably 'shocked' that anyone would have an issue with his reasonable RS edits. Then he runs around behind the scenes to get recruits - he often emails outside WP so he avoids anti-canvassing rules. You definitely need recruits because, sadly, numbers matter to some degree here, not just the quality of argument. One guy reverts your edits, you protest, another guy gives you a warning for edit warring. The socialists believe in the reality of 'group' identities so, naturally, they work well in clusters - as a unit - to enforce 'group-think' in the gulag. I have tried, in the shadows, to correct their nefarious edits. See here, here, and here for example. It's always the same three or four, but they are all academics or govt-employee parasites so they've got loads of time on their hands and can afford to camp-edit, wikistalk and wikilawyer you out of WP. A few suggestions from years of dealing with these devious rodents:

1. DISTRACT. They are hypersensitive to edits on inflation, monetary inflation, monetary reform, John Maynard Keynes - especially anything to do with his gayness - Paul Krugman, Joseph Stiglitz, Peter Schiff, Ron Paul, Rand Paul, Tea Party Movement, anarchism, or - as you know - Libertarianism. What I used to do before they put a group contract out on my head was to 'cluster' edit. I'd edit on monetary reform, then fight them on that page, then make small minor edits on the page I was really interested in, like Austrian School. They were so distracted and so child-like in their responses that they'd end up happy to kill me off from monetary reform not realizing that I'd made edits on another page. However the ratio had to be about 20 to 1. Anything less, and they'd cotton on. They're nasty hypocrites, they're mad, they're zealots, but they're certainly not stupid and they work in clusters very well. Perhaps there is something to the socialist idea that group identities matter, because they certainly work well in groups. Then again, so do rats and mice...

2. USE THEIR ARGUMENTS AGAINST THEM. Checking their attacks against others, I was amazed how hypocritical and inconsistent their arguments were from page to page. As I pointed out to you before, it is simply incredible that BKH is screaming to have left-libertarianism retained on the mainpage - and note we're not asking for the left-libertarian page to be wiped out, just for this stuff to be left on the LL page - BUT ON THE THE OTHER HAND, he and LK have both been screaming for months to reduce Austrian and Libertarian positions on other pages. See here, here and here. I've won every argument because I know my stuff and always point to references - I genuinely want to tell the exact truth on those pages where I know my stuff - but they really don't care. They have no shame. They always - always - delete my talk page arguments once I've won. See for example here and here. Notice on the history pages that admins have even deleted my history, so you can't ever go back and read these old arguments. Why would they do that when so few people would go back to the history pages? This is extreme censorship. They don't want successful arguments to even have a trace of history.

3. QUOTE DIRECTLY FROM RELIABLE SOURCES. My best tactic before they banished me to the shadows like a leper was simply to copy and paste sections from significant libertarian, Rothbardian or Austrians works and add them in as quotes. I'd really try to pick the quotes that encapsulated the whole book or the whole argument. Sometimes this would take hours. But it was bullet proof. There was no argument about screwing with the text. I just pasted in exactly what was said. is a great resource because all the sources are on-line so you can copy and paste during an argument.

If all else fails, and they kill you off from Libertarianism, don't worry. You can always enrage them by going to the inflation page and putting in quotes from Rothbard and Mises stating that inflation is by definition debasement of the means of exchange or simply increases in the volume of money circulating in the economy. That always seems to trigger their rage the most. Because that's the heart of the statist scam. My sincere thanks for all your patient work and you have been much more tolerant of these idiots than I ever was, which is, sadly, why I've ended up in the shadows. Recruit some friends and take a break when you need to. And throw in an edit on social credit occasionally if you want to stir the pot a little on other pages. Or try to add Ellen Hodgson Brown, Henry C.K. Liu or Jorg Guido Hulsmann back in WP as notable writers. These kinds of fun and games always enraged them. Because I knew the statist scams so well I knew what would get them going, so these little games were always great fun. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:55, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, if you have time to give further input on the matter. BigK HeX (talk) 17:10, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I thought it was rambling and unconstructive, and that somebody should have stepped in to tell this editor to back off. But I don't think name calling does anything except escalate. Figureofnine (talk) 17:16, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Very possibly so. Thanks for the extra advisement! BigK HeX (talk) 17:19, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
I can see how this editor got on your nerves. Figureofnine (talk) 18:54, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

IP vandalEdit

Hi! You replied to my comment about an anonymous IP vandal who has been giving me a hard time. I added some newer sources to the conversation. Is there anything more that can be done? Andrzejbanas (talk) 00:52, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I left a note on his talk page yesterday. I'm not seeing this as vandalism, but as lack of civility, edit warring and possible socking, as you pointed out on an article talk page. It's borderline in all these instances. I am dubious about the value of WQA, so I see this as a test as to whether intervention of non-administrator editors will help in a situation like this. Figureofnine (talk) 18:56, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for sending a welcome message. Sorry if I came across as rude in the AfD. That certainly wasn't my intention! Cheers. --Artlovesyou (talk) 06:42, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Sure, you're very welcome. Happy editing! Figureofnine (talk) 14:50, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Regarding WikiquetteEdit

Look at my latest reply here please. I just felt like I should directly tell you. :) Endofskull (talk) 18:51, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, understood. Thanks. Figureofnine (talk) 19:34, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboardEdit

I reported Heavydata right here. I thought you may want to be involved. Thanks! Endofskull (talk) 22:21, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Paul BernEdit

Good job on the suicide note. Kudos! Namaste...DocOfSoc (talk) 18:04, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Figureofnine (talk) 18:05, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

European Population Balance 1939-1945Edit

Please give a vaild reason why you would delete this article?--Woogie10w (talk) 18:53, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

See reply on your talk page. Another editor nominated it for deletion, and I am not in favor of deletion. Figureofnine (talk) 18:59, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
This is absurd, I create a article with sourced valid content. It can't be deleted.--Woogie10w (talk) 19:01, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
You need to take that up with the nominator. I was going to help rescue this article, but no longer. I'm not going to waste my time trying to rescue the article when you improperly remove speedy deletion notices and, now, have blanked the page. (For the record, when the article was nominated for deletion it didn't have "valid sourced content." It had two words: "Start article.") Figureofnine (talk) 19:06, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

"Austro-Hungarian-born American" theoretical physicistEdit

List him as "Austro-Hungarian and American" theoretical physicist or list him as "Hungarian-American" since Austria-Hungary was dissolved in 1918. BUT Austro-Hungarian born American citizen falsely alleges that he is a natural born American citizen, which is appropriation.

Albert Einstein was a German scientist, he fled from Germany, emigrated to the US because of the anti jewish laws etc. That makes him a US citizen, but everyone refers to him as the german scientist with groundbreaking ideas ... - who lived in the US.

Other immigrants to the US: - Head of US rocket development programme. Listed as German-American - She was also an immigrant from Czechoslovakia - Listed as Czech-American —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dflt1122 (talkcontribs) 22:16, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

This belongs on the article talk page, so all may see. Figureofnine (talk) 22:33, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

J. Robert OppenheimerEdit

I've finished adding footnotes to J. Robert Oppenheimer and have put it up for Good Article review. I can't think of anybody better qualified to review it. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:21, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

the Public Policy Initiative Assessment Team wants You!Edit

Hi Figureofnine, I saw some of your contributions on an article that falls within the scope of Wikiproject: United States Public Policy, and I was hoping you would be interested in assessing articles with the Public Policy Initiative. There is more info about assessment on the 9/13/2010 Signpost. If you're interested or just curious you can sign up on the project page or just contact me. Thanks! ARoth (Public Policy Initiative) (talk) 00:35, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Figureofnine. You have new messages at Hartfordathletics's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Contested speedy deletion: Countries where french is a shared languageEdit

I contested the A10 speedy deletion tag you placed on Countries where french is a shared language, as one of the criteria for A10 is that the article title is not a plausible redirect to the article that it duplicates. In this case, I consider the title a plausible search term and have redirected it to List of countries where French is an official language. Cheers! —KuyaBriBriTalk 14:53, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Good call. Thanks, Figureofnine (talk) 14:54, 4 May 2011 (UTC)


Hello, Figureofnine. You have new messages at SchuminWeb's talk page.
Message added 21:47, 5 June 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

SchuminWeb (Talk) 21:47, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

And again. SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:35, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Allegations of fraud involving Chinese stocksEdit

You raised a good question on my talk page. I think what I'm going to try is to go through the current article with a hachet. Anything that smells of POV, OR or SYN I'm going to remove. Anything that looks decent but isn't supported, I'm going to tag. I also feel that some organization work on the article could help some. Many articles of that size do just fine without a good intro section, but I think that article really needs one. I feel like it's floundering around, with some nembulous core idea out there, but never clearly spelled out. Getting rid of the uncited companies on the fraud list was a major step - that was ugly. I've seen enough articles that I think it's a salvageable article, but it's going to take some time. Ravensfire (talk) 14:58, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I think that's the right approach, and I'll try to help if I can. Figureofnine (talkcontribs) 23:40, 5 August 2011 (UTC)


  • I* have, a rather short-standing edit dispute with User:VsevolodKrolikov, so if anything my beef is with him, but I ask you to look closer and re-evaluate your comment at Wikiquette alert, and perhaps reconsider it. In particular, look at User:Gise-354x's increasingly uncivil comments in his/her talk page when warned about 1RR/3RR issues by me and the evidence in diffs that User:VsevolodKrolikov. User:Gise-354x is obviously trying to poison the well, and in your case, appears to have been successful. For example, unlike the first report, there is no evidence presented - please take this into account.--Cerejota (talk) 14:05, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Sure, I'll give it another look. Figureofnine (talkcontribs) 14:16, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

New Page Patrol surveyEdit

New page patrol – Survey Invitation

Hello Figureofnine! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you.

  • If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only.
  • If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it.

Please click HERE to take part.
Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback.

You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey

Dispute resolution surveyEdit

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite

Hello Figureofnine. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released.

Please click HERE to participate.
Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts.

You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 02:31, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)Edit

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

Steven Zhang's Fellowship Slideshow

In this issue:

  • Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
  • Research: The most recent DR data
  • Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
  • Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
  • DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
  • Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
  • Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?
Read the entire first edition of The Olive Branch -->

--The Olive Branch 19:02, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 21Edit

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hollywood blacklist, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Howard Koch (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:53, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 13Edit

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited From This Day Forward, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Flashback (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:57, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Help for Figureofnine on what NPOV really meansEdit

Hello. On my talk page you wrote:

Articles are required to maintain a neutral point of view, and there are prohibitions against inserting personal analysis and adding irrelevant material for the purpose of slanting an article. You've consistently done all of that. I generally don't like to waste too much energy in bringing these to your attention, but I see that others are equally concerned and you would do well to pay attention. I'm not going to get into an extended conversation with you on this because you just don't get it.

My reply:

NPOV "means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." It doesn't mean excluding points of view you dislike, like the 98 percent of the country who weren't communists during the blacklist. That certainly qualifies as a significant POV and relevant material.

NPOV also says that "Editors, while naturally having their own points of view, should strive in good faith to provide complete information, and not to promote one particular point of view over another. As such, the neutral point of view does not mean exclusion of certain points of view, but including all notable and verifiable points of view." My POV, that the ACP at the time of the blacklist worked for Stalin is a POV in the sense that it is a POV that the Eiffel Tower is in Paris. The problem was that you wanted to exclude the POV of 98 percent of the country (which qualifies as notable).

You still haven't said why "professional anti-communists" are unreliable sources, or if Theodore Draper was really one. You never went to my talk page to engage in a conversation, just a lecture. It's fine if you don't return. I can stand it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LesLein (talkcontribs) 02:17, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

That's right. You'd be well to read and learn that policy, and to give careful consideration to Carrite's comments on your talk page. Figureofnine (talkcontribs) 20:15, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 6Edit

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Elia Kazan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Robert Lewis (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:08, 6 May 2013 (UTC)


Dear you,

I have grown so frustrated with the BP-related articles and the strange dynamics at the pages, that I retired from Wikipedia - twice! But I was called back with a request to help, and couldn't say no. Truthfully, to frustrate well intentioned editors seems to the goal in some cases. I say this after a year at the page and watching everything...

Input like yours is so extraordinarily crucial to Wiki and corporate-controlled pages in particular. How do we retain the independent viewpoint, like yours, on a page so hostile to it?

Needless to say, it sure would be wonderful to have your help, but I completely understand your reasons for walking away. petrarchan47tc 18:29, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I'll see what I can do. I've never seen such flagrant disregard for Wikipedia policies. Figureofnine (talkcontribs) 20:02, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Thank you, 9, most excellent. In case you're extremely bored, here is the story of my retirement due to the BP page. I'm not sure if you're aware of this recent news, but you can still see the fallout at Slim Virgin's talk page (as well as Jimbo Wales' archives). At Slims, we are working to figure out how Wikipedia editors should respond to paid editing, particularly with the BP PR team active on the page, and how an NPOV article and sane talk page experience can be attained. petrarchan47tc 20:09, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for this. Figureofnine (talkcontribs) 23:34, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Three reverts in 25 hoursEdit

Reverting BP 3 times in 25 hours is gaming the system on the 3-revert rule. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:12, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Obviously you know as little about the three-revert rule as you do about what's appropriate in an article. Figureofnine (talkcontribs) 15:55, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 28Edit

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Pat Hingle, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jose Quintero (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:47, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 4Edit

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Late Show (film), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Group Theater (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:17, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Not sure if you'd want to weigh in, butEdit

You're certainly free to. I've asked some questions of the closing admin, which I hear is allowed. It's here. petrarchan47tc 20:39, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I have opined on his page. Figureofnine (talkcontribs) 21:40, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

DRN needs your help!Edit

Hi there. I've noticed it's been a while since you've been active at DRN, and we could really use your help! DRN is going to undergo some changes soon, so it'd really be great if our backlog is cleared before the start of August and we have as many people on board to help with the changes (they include a move to subpages and the creation of a rotating "co-ordinator" role to help manage things day-to-day. Hope to see you soon! Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 11:31, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

The new face of DRN: FigureofnineEdit

Recently the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard underwent some changes in how it operates. Part of the change involved a new list of volunteers with a bit of information about the people behind the names.

You are listed as a volunteer at DRN currently, to update your profile is simple, just click here. Thanks, Cabe6403(TalkSign) 17:11, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

August 2013Edit

  Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Save the Tiger may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • The film's main character is Harry Stoner (Jack Lemmon, an executive at an apparel company close to ruin. With no legal way to keep the

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:28, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome, and may I say that you're one hell of a bot! Figureofnine (talkcontribs) 17:56, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

A kitten for you!Edit

A cute little kitten for you to play with while you wait out the final decision. You are one of our very best editors and I don't want you to get discouraged!

Gandydancer (talk) 19:19, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! I don't know what decision you're referring to, but the kitten is cute. Figureofnine (talkcontribs) 19:21, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Your involvement with DRNEdit

Hi there, I noticed that you haven't been as active at DRN as you was before. DRN has been a bit backlogged lately and we could use some extra hands. We have updated our volunteer list to a new format, Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Volunteers (your name is still there under the old format if you haven't updated it) and are looking into ways to make DRN more effective and more rewarding for volunteers (your input is appreciated!). If you don't have much time to volunteer at the moment, that's fine too, just move your name to the inactive list (you're free to add yourself back to active at any time). Hope to see you again soon :) Steven Zhang (talk) 13:17, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

BP article RfCEdit

I have started an RfC on the BP article and would welcome a response from you. I am sending this message to all users who have edited that page. Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:07, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

DWH Oil Spill: RespiratorsEdit

Seeking discussion of your reverts on that talk page. Geogene (talk) 01:15, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 17Edit

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited George Tyne, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page A Walk in the Sun (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:55, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

That's a good pointEdit

And if truth be told, I'm not sure even he knows whether he wants everyone gone to stop them from "hounding" him or if he wants us there so he can continue to argue the point. What I am fairly certain of is that we will all be the better for having the discussion out of our lives for however long it takes the formal determination to be made. ;) Snow talk 17:04, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Accusing an editor of COIEdit

Continuing my response to your comments on Talk:COI about TP.... Before I say more, I want to say two things. First, I tend to be direct and blunt; please don't take that as though I am attacking you. My opinions are my own and you can take them or leave them -- all I want is to state my mind clearly and to be heard. Second, I want to disclose to you that I have been chased around Wikipedia by various editors who were (perhaps still are) convinced that I am a conflicted shill for ag biotech companies. This included me being the subject of extended rants on Jimbo's page. When I was experiencing this, I found it ugly as hell. Not one of the editors hounding me ever brought a case at COIN - they just kept attacking me on article Talk pages and user Talk pages. I finally opened a COIN thread on myself and disclosed my RL identity and work to an admin, which quieted things down. So I am somewhat sensitive to witnessing accusations of COI. End of background.

So... our COI guideline says that if there is a perception of COI, it should be first brought up at a user's talk page. If there is no satisfaction there, the next step is WP:COIN, where the community can weigh in. (One of my frustrations with our COI guidance being only a guideline, is that the "what to do" guidance is only guideline and not a policy. If I had my way, this part of the guideline would also be policy and editors who hound other editors over COI would also be subject to sanctions for doing that.) (Just to be clear about where I am coming from, almost everything I have written on COI Talk pages has been advocating that we need a very strong and clear COI policy with clear guidance and with sanctions for editors with conflicts who violate the policy; I am very glad that WMF acted to put an actionable policy in place, at least for disclosure! I would have had them go further, but I understand their restraint as well.) In any case, if consensus is reached at COIN that there is a COI, then admins there can take action. If there is no consensus of COI at COIN, then the matter should be dropped by the editors who brought it up. If further evidence subsequently arises, new COIN threads can be opened. But as I wrote above, I see the kind of pursuit of an individual across the project that you are doing, to be just ugly witch-hunting. I believe that you are well intentioned, but I don't like what you are doing and I think it violates our COI guideline. Again, that is my view -- I am not asking you to agree to it, but just to hear it. Thank you for your time. Jytdog (talk) 19:05, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

I've raised it at COIN. Figureofnine (talkcontribs) 19:19, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Thank you! In my view this is the correct way to proceed. Jytdog (talk) 19:32, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
No problem. It never even occurred to me, to tell you the truth. I don't understand why the issue has never gone there before. Figureofnine (talkcontribs) 19:38, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Quick note. In general, if you ever go back and edit something on a Talk page that you wrote, and others have responded to, you shouldn't just edit it. Instead, you should show the changes. if you want to delete something, you should strike it, like this and if you add something, you should mark it like this, and re-sign the comment with a note that you edited it. I did that in this dif since you had already responded to me. If someone hasn't responded yet, you are free to just directly change your remarks without showing the changes. This is discussed in the Talk Page Guidelines, here. Jytdog (talk) 20:27, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
I understand that, but since it was inflammatory, and since only you had responded, I thought it best to just delete it entirely. But if you think I should reinstate it and strike it out anyway, I'll go back and do it. Figureofnine (talkcontribs) 20:31, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
when you go to drama boards, it is best to be super-compliant with guidelines and policies lest your own behavior become an issue. so yes I recommend that you reinstate and strike it. Jytdog (talk) 20:37, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Done. Earlier I responded at some length to your long comment, but I deleted that entirely rather than strike it out when I had second thoughts. Suffice to say that I regret the difficulties you've had, but I think that this situation is an entirely different set of facts. Figureofnine (talkcontribs) 21:11, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes, undeleting and striking out was definitely the way to go. Figureofnine (talkcontribs) 22:23, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
I did write a wall of text. sorry about that. Jytdog (talk) 01:36, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Not a problem, and not a wall. However, I am beginning to see why COI/N was not utilized to deal with this situation in the past. I am reminded of the F. Scott Fitzgerald quote about rich people not being like you and me. On Wikipedia one substitutes "administrator." Figureofnine (talkcontribs) 01:59, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
patience, patience.... and please keep in mind that you have actly badly yourself and the harm from that is making this harder than it has to be.... there are rarely any angels around here and being fully self-aware, and appropriately humble in that self-awareness, makes things go so, so much better. Jytdog (talk) 02:16, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Well, I do admit that I should have raised the issue first on his talk page. But I couldn't help but notice that the last person who did so had his head handed to him. You're right, there is great frustration building over this, and the WP:VESTED position that I'm seeing advanced is jaw-dropping stuff. Figureofnine (talkcontribs) 02:24, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

───────────────────────── More of my bluntness. Your self-righteous outrage is about the absolute worst thing to bring in a delicate matter like this. Maybe it feels good but it is exactly what will prevent you from getting what you want. Jytdog (talk) 05:03, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

On the contrary, my attitude towards this is completely realistic. Figureofnine (talkcontribs) 11:13, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
as you will. Jytdog (talk) 13:54, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
You've been very helpful in most of your contributions on this, and in clarifying the issues, but at times you tend to be a little judgmental, which does not help. I agree that it should have been escalated much sooner, but the root of the problem is that there is an administrator refusing to comply with WP:COI. I can only conjecture that there is a fear of TParis, his status as administrator, and his temper that has prevented other users from escalating this as required, incorporating a concern that administrators are subject to a double standard. Frankly I'm not sure that bringing it to COIN was a good idea, may have simply exacerbated matters, and will not resolve the central issue unless either there is disclosure or the guideline is changed. My personal view is that the root of the problem is less WP:COI than WP:CIVIL, and I've had extensive discussions with TParis on this. Judging from his post on the COIN, there has been no progress in that area. Figureofnine (talkcontribs) 15:13, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Claims about the "root of the problem" are what I am talking about. As long as you continue to view yourself (and the community) as the wronged party and TP as wronged in no way, you miss the point of Wikipedia itself, which is that we try to understand each other and to reach consensus. You all have also violated WP:CIVIL in hounding him. Again, my perspective is that the self-rightousness in pursuing COI is harmful to the project - it is exactly one of the things that makes people oppose elevating COI to policy - it is what makes people throw around terms like "witch hunt". Your attitude is part of that problem. That is my perspective, which you are free to take or leave.Jytdog (talk) 15:24, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Nobody has "hounded" anyone. Several editors have raised the issue in good faith, and have been thwarted, threatened and treated pretty shabbily. You weren't even aware that it was TParis who was the paid editor I alluded to, and perhaps also you're not familiar with the pretty grim interchanges that have taken place on multiple pages, including TParis gratuitously exposing the identity of an editor he didn't like. The WP:CIVIL issue here in my view is entirely one-sided. TParis himself can't cite a single instance of my doing anything improper. Whenever the issue is raised, he screams "harassment," which itself is a WP:CIVIL issue. As for "witch hunt," I don't much care. People use all kinds of hyperbole, as do you. Figureofnine (talkcontribs) 15:34, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
In my initial posting on WT:COI I didn't even name TParis and had no intention to, and you thought I was referring to someone else. Then, at your insistence, I corrected your impression, and now, because I responded to your question, you're claiming I "hounded" him. That is annoying. You're using the same kind of inflammatory language that you keep accusing other people of using. As for this COI noticeboard posting, I think it's interesting that neither of the other two editors who have raised this issue in the past have weighed in. They obviously know something I don't know. Figureofnine (talkcontribs) 15:42, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
I am sorry you are annoyed. I am not asking you to agree with me, just to hear me. Jytdog (talk) 15:54, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
I hear you, but what I hear is frankly not always well-informed when it comes to the background of this situation. While escalating is sometimes a good idea, and follows the rulebook, this is an instance in which one party has thrown the rulebook out the window and stuck his tongue out at the community. Nevertheless, a user with 30K contributions, more than you and I put together, decided by his actions not to bring this to COI/N. What does that tell you? Figureofnine (talkcontribs) 16:11, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

───────────────────────── who are you talking about? and i tend not to speculate on the actions of others. why don't you ask the person? Jytdog (talk) 16:15, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

That would be contrary to WP:CANVASS. I'm referring to one of the two editors who have made much more of a fuss on this than I have. Figureofnine (talkcontribs) 16:18, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

The perfect as the enemy of the goodEdit

What you are doing now, pursuing TParis, is in my view very unproductive. We have a public disclosure on COIN. In my mind that is good enough. If you keep pursuing this, TParis is likely to withdraw his consent altogether. The spirit of the requirement is met. I recommend you leave it alone. This kind of pursuit of perfection is exactly why the community has failed to reach consensus on any policy on paid editing. The middle cannot be reached because purists on the extremes will not compromise. You will do as you will, but I meant when I said I am done trying to help. This is the last I will have to say on the matter. I recommend you strike what you wrote today on COIN about this and let it go. Jytdog (talk) 16:00, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

It's not about perfect or good, but compliance with the guideline, and defiance by an administrator. Figureofnine (talkcontribs) 16:12, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
I want to remind you that I went to COI Noticeboard at your insistence and against my better judgment. You asked for agreement to language you drafted and I agreed as did us all. Outrageous. Figureofnine (talkcontribs) 16:38, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
and we got a result - we got public disclosure on the Talk page of COI. Like I said it is not a perfect result, but now the disclosure is there for everybody to see, with TParis' consent. The spirit of the guideline is met - and it got met because you did the right thing and then you allowed others to forge a compromise - also the right thing. I am sure TParis is not the happiest camper either. Welcome to life in an actual community. In my view your outrage is self-indulgent childishness and your judgement in pursuing it is poor - you are going to blow up the compromise and end up back where you started. But you will do as you will, of course. Jytdog (talk) 17:11, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
1. Spare me the insults. 2. Welcome to good-faith negotiating. When people agree to X, they don't agree to Y. Goodbye. Figureofnine (talkcontribs) 17:43, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
btw, I was not objecting that you changed the text in the header. (i actually like the one we agreed to better, as I wrote on COIN). Jytdog (talk) 19:14, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Just letting off steam, huh? Coretheapple (talk) 00:58, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
My preference is just to put all this sidetalk aside as it is unproductive and irritating. Jytdog, thank you for the compromise but your inconsistency and tone are not helpful. Figureofnine (talkcontribs) 21:54, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Case Opened: Banning PolicyEdit

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Banning Policy. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Banning Policy/Evidence. Please add your evidence by September 16, 2014, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Banning Policy/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Seddon talk 12:32, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Your advice on the Zakaria page?Edit

Hey, with regards to the Fareed Zakaria page, I would like your input as to how best to cite the discussion of the anonymous accusers covered in this Politico article: If the Dan Rather page is any indication, it seems like staying vague regarding the outside-media sources is best, but now that they're becoming the subject of stories it seems we're heading into uncharted territory. Let me know what you think if you get the chance. Thanks. -Emoprog (talk) 01:37, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Oppenheimer security hearingEdit

I have gone through Oppenheimer security hearing, added some background and painstakingly gone through all the references, add new ones where necessary. I have nominated it for GA. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:52, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Good, that is warranted. Figureofnine (talkcontribs) 15:49, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Would you mind if I co-nominated it at FAC? Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:08, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Why would I mind? You have every right. Figureofnine (talkcontribs) 15:27, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
Because you did more work on it, so it is a co-nomination. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:30, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
Oh I see. That's fine. My attendance here has been sporadic so I may not be available to help much unfortunately. Figureofnine (talkcontribs) 19:47, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
No problem with that. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:08, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Help needed at DRNEdit

You are receiving this message because you are signed up as a volunteer at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. We have a number of pending requests which need a volunteer to address them. Unless you are an inexperienced volunteer who is currently just watching DRN to learn our processes, please take a case. If you do not see yourself taking cases in the foreseeable future, please remove yourself from the volunteer list so that we can have a better idea of the size of our pool of volunteers; if you do see yourself taking cases, please watchlist the DRN page and keep an eye out to see if there are cases which are ready for a volunteer. We have recently had to refuse a number of cases because they were listed for days with no volunteer willing to take them, despite there being almost 150 volunteers listed on the volunteer page. Regards, TransporterMan (talk · contribs) (Current DRN coordinator) (Not watching this page) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:48, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!Edit

You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:24, 24 November 2015 (UTC)


Hallo, I reverted your bold addition to Fermi. Please reply on the article talk page, thanks! Alex2006 (talk) 17:46, 26 November 2015 (UTC)


Thanks for welcoming me, and for your comment. That being my first Wikipedia edit ever, it's nice to know you thought I did a good job. Robert Smith54321 (talk) 03:25, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Happy New Year!Edit

  Happy New Year!
Best wishes for a wonderful 2016!---- WV 00:02, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
Thank you! Figureofnine (talkcontribs) 00:32, 31 December 2015 (UTC)


Happy New Year 2016!
Did you know ... that back in 1885, Wikipedia editors wrote Good Articles with axes, hammers and chisels?

Thank you for your contributions to this encyclopedia using 21st century technology. I hope you don't get any unneccessary blisters.
   – Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:46, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

COI NoticeboardEdit

I'm sure this was an accidental oversight, but you need to tell people when they are the subject of COI Noticeboard discussions, via {{subst:coin-notice}} ~~~~ or a notice of your own choosing. Coretheapple (talk) 19:27, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Third Party Opinion SoughtEdit

Would you please be so kind as to render your opinion on Draft:Sorcha Faal after reading article and Draft talk:Sorcha Faal?

Please start a new section on Draft talk:Sorcha Faal to leave your comments at, if possible.

Thank youPicomtn (talk) 10:14, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/March 24, 2016Edit

Hawkeye and Figureofnine, a summary of a Featured Article you nominated will appear on the Main Page soon. The summary mostly follows the lead section; how does it look? - Dank (push to talk) 23:08, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

I already checked it, and it looks really impressive. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:51, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Great! Btw, were you going to work on the text for Wikipedia:Today's featured article/March 18, 2016? - Dank (push to talk) 03:57, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
It looks fairly good. I couldn't edit it if I wanted to though. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:18, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 13:23, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Belatedly agreeing. Thanks. Figureofnine (talkcontribs) 15:25, 12 March 2016 (UTC)



Thank you quality articles such as Oppenheimer security hearing, performed in collaboration, for welcoming new users and warning unconstructive ones, for clarification and simplicity from the start, for a modest user page with a focus on third opinion and dispute resolution, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:23, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

A year ago, you were recipient no. 1356 of Precious, a prize of QAI! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:52, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Three years now! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:02, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

DRN help needed and volunteer roll callEdit

You are receiving this message because you have listed yourself on the list of volunteers at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Volunteering#List of the DRN volunteers.

First, assistance is needed at DRN. We have recently closed a number of cases without any services being provided for lack of a volunteer willing to take the case. There are at least three cases awaiting a volunteer at this moment. Please consider taking one.

Second, this is a volunteer roll call. If you remain interested in helping at DRN and are willing to actively do so by taking at least one case (and seeing it through) or helping with administrative matters at least once per calendar month, please add your name to this roll call list. Individuals currently on the principal volunteer list who do not add their name on the roll call list will be removed from the principal volunteer list after June 30, 2016 unless the DRN Coordinator chooses to retain their name for the best interest of DRN or the encyclopedia. Individuals whose names are removed after June 30, 2016, should feel free to re-add their names to the principal volunteer list, but are respectfully requested not to do so unless they are willing to take part at DRN at least one time per month as noted above. No one is going to be monitoring to see if you live up to that commitment, but we respectfully ask that you either live up to it or remove your name from the principal volunteer list.

Best regards, TransporterMan (talk · contribs) (Current DRN coordinator) (Not watching this page) Sent via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:05, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

User talk:WinkelviEdit

Hi, Figureofnine. Please don't ask Winkelvi for his thoughts on Rick Alan Ross. He has a voluntary topic ban (replacing an actual topic ban) from everything connected with RAR. See the outcome of this AE discussion from December. Perhaps you'd care to edit your post to remove the mention of Ross? No need to remind Winkelvi of that rather tempestuous story, even if it had a happy ending. Bishonen | talk 18:45, 15 May 2016 (UTC).

Sorry I was not aware of his topic ban. I can't find my comment, which I assume was removed/archived. Figureofnine (talkcontribs) 20:15, 22 May 2016 (UTC)


Edit warring indeed. Even with 6,000 fewer characters of trivia, it's still not up to GA levels. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:45, 18 June 2016 (UTC)


Hi my name is Emma Carbaugh‬‏, I got your name from a guy who you helped. I need your help with adding a new Wikipedia entry, please contact me at Emmacarbaugh (talk) 08:44, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!Edit

 Hello, Figureofnine. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Don't tell me it's your firstEdit

  The Barnstar of Diligence
As the star's description says, it's "in recognition of scrutiny, precision and community service". I have nothing to add to that. Except that you do have to polish it once a month. Cheers, Yintan  19:52, 27 November 2016 (UTC)


Please be careful with your recent barnstars and praise related to the ANI discussion. Personally, I think you have good intentions but you have been discussed on Winkelvi's talk page. I would hate to see another casualty of this issue (User:Keri) so take care.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:32, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Oh my. Figureofnine (talkcontribs) 11:48, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to WP:STiki!Edit

Hello, Figureofnine, and welcome to STiki! Thank you for your recent contributions using our tool. We at STiki hope you like using the tool and decide to continue using it in the future. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Here are some pages which are a little more fun:

  • The STiki leaderboard - See how you are faring against other STiki users!
  • Userboxes - Do not hesitate to wear the STiki label with pride by choosing from a selection of userboxes!

We hope you enjoy maintaining Wikipedia with STiki! If you have any questions, problems, or suggestions don't hesitate to drop a note over at the STiki talk page and we'll be more than happy to help. Again, welcome, and thanks! West.andrew.g (talk) 13:57, 12 April 2017 (UTC)


Note: Having a username change after you start using STiki will reset your classification count. Please let us know about such changes on the talk page page to avoid confusion in issuing milestone awards. You can also request for your previous STiki contributions to be reassigned to your new account name.

A barnstar for you!Edit

  The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
Thank you for your support and your thanks for my contributions on Wikipedia.

My passion is writing new articles.

I enjoy research and writing and giving freely of my time by myself as one person and donating to Wikipedia both with my charitable financial giving and my article creation efforts to add high quality new articles to this site.

It becomes more difficult to do so in the face of stalking and harassment as can be seen at recently closed case resulting in indefinite block of a user.

Your acknowledgement of my efforts to improve Wikipedia and contribute to this site are encouraging during such times.

Thank you. Sagecandor (talk) 05:27, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks very much. Figureofnine (talkcontribs) 12:49, 4 July 2017 (UTC)


  Thanks for supporting my run for administrator. I am honored and grateful. ) Cullen328 Let's discuss it 21:55, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

RfA Cullen328Edit

I sincerely hope that any factual actions by Cullen328 will never ever fit to my personal perception of, especially, the wording "take care". In spite of opposing to all the PC-derived crap of urbanity, civility, safety of spaces, ... I still try to adhere to a higher level of sensitivity, more fully de rigeur, than what I perceived from the verbiage of an admin to be. Of course, I never intended to be kidding. Purgy (talk) 10:47, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

As I said at the RfA, I think it was plain that Cullen simply meant that he didn't want you to be "bludgeoned" (WP:BLUDGEON) for your views and that he was OK with your position. That's all. But he can speak for himself. Figureofnine (talkcontribs) 11:25, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Just to avoid any misunderstandings: up to now Cullen328 and I never exchanged views on anything. I do not look for a further discussion on this. Purgy (talk) 12:58, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

So fine...Edit

So fine to see you again. I had forgotten all about you but now I remember how much your excellent plain ol' good common sense was appreciated at one time. I'm smart, I try very hard, and I've done some good things here, but it is people like you that make me proud to be part of this project. My heart also swelled when I read the comments of a couple of other editors...that would be Ken and Wnt. In the over ten years I've been here my respect for our editors just grows and grows and I have long been convinced that group-think handles most problems that arise quite well. It is those that believe that a tight group of the elite are more capable of making Wikipedia great than the group-think of all that concerns me. I can say from both many years of work experience and study of the group experience that an almost spiritual process comes into play when participants brainstorm for solutions. Well, we will see what happens in this current dilemma. I cross my fingers that it will end well but it does not look good. I dread the thought that everything controversial that I put in current articles will be deleted as being too new... I can't imagine that I will continue to edit current articles. Best, Gandy Gandydancer (talk) 20:53, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Good to hear from you Gandy. I am sort of in and out, mostly out. But I am glad you are still around and contributing! Figureofnine (talkcontribs) 21:36, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

New Page ReviewingEdit

Hello, Figureofnine.

I noticed you've done some constructive editing recently.
Would you please consider becoming a New Page Reviewer? Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; currently Wikipedia needs experienced users at this task. (After gaining the flag, patrolling is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the tutorial before making your decision. Thanks. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 09:11, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter messageEdit

 Hello, Figureofnine. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Chas. CaltropEdit

You are being notified because you participated in a previous AN/I report about this editor. Another report has been filed here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:41, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Happy HolidaysEdit

  Happy Holidays
Wishing you a happy holiday season! Times flies and 2018 is around the corner. Thank you for your contributions. ~ K.e.coffman (talk) 00:54, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Season's GreetingsEdit

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message

Happy New Year, Figureofnine!Edit

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Notice of DSEdit

Hi - I am posting the notice of DS to everybody recently active on Sarah Jeong who has not had a notice of these DS in the past year.

 This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have recently shown interest in living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect: any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or any page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Jytdog (talk) 14:25, 8 August 2018 (UTC)


I commend your efforts to address the clerking issue on the Sarah Jeong page, I think you argued your position quite well, but I think it was a wasted effort, no offense. My intention on that page after seeing the way it devolved was to test a pet theory of mine that trolls and concern SPA mobs in recent months have provoked such a backlash from protectionist editors that anyone who takes a more critical approach to the subject being edited will be cut down by "friendly fire." Its a shame to see the end of a truly NPOV Wikipedia. But that's life in the post-2016 world. (talk) 00:24, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I suggest monitoring the clerking and reporting to ANI if there is abuse. However, keep in mind that the clerking is a side issue. The repetitious character of some of the discussions is what is raising hackles, and indeed that is not a good thing. When people come back and go over and over again the same points, it irritates. RfCs are usually the best way of dealing with disagreements in controversial articles, hence my RfC on whether there should be a section. Before bringing it, I checked to see how much the issue had been discussed. Since an RfC brings in uninvolved editors, that is the best way to determine if a tiny "cabal" of editors is pushing POV or if there is general sentiment for including or excluding content. There tends to be a general view that Wikipedia is under "siege" in certain articles and that one must circle the wagons. That's just how it is. Figureofnine (talkcontribs) 12:40, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter messageEdit

 Hello, Figureofnine. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Return to the user page of "Figureofnine".