User talk:Figureofnine

Oppenheimer

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)

Note

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)

Thanks!

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

Justin Bieber awards

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 attention

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. http://www.verfassungsschutz-mv.de/cms2/Verfassungsschutz_prod/Verfassungsschutz/content_downloads/Verfassungsschutzberichte/VS-Bericht_2009.pdf --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)

Demmin

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 filing

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. Mises.org 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 114.73.173.184 (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 vandal

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)