User talk:Ningauble/Archive 3

Unblock Request
On wikiquote I was working on an article and it said you blocked me. Why?TheyCallMeFirstKlass 16:53, 4 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deezy.D. (talk • contribs)
 * Your IP address is automatically blocked because I blocked the q:User:Researchman12 account for sockpuppetry. If someone else is abusing your internet connection, you can still edit with the Deezy.D. account from a different location. ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:04, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

This is the only location I have an internet connection from though so can't I help you by pointing out specific users I know are abusing my IP adress? The blocks go on my record right? So if I wanted to become an administrator on here or on wikiquote it could dampen my chances correct? Deezy.D. (talk) 18:39, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * This is evidently not the only address from which you can edit, because you have been using the Deezy.D. account at Wikiquote today. If you want to appeal the autoblock at Wikiquote then please post your request at Wikiquote on your talk page or at the Wikiquote:Administrators' noticeboard where other administrators can review the situation. ~ Ningauble (talk) 20:35, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Your input is needed on the SOPA initiative
Hi Ningauble,

You are receiving this message either because you expressed an opinion about the proposed SOPA blackout before full blackout and soft blackout were adequately differentiated, or because you expressed general support without specifying a preference. Please ensure that your voice is heard by clarifying your position accordingly.

Thank you.

Message delivered as per request on ANI. -- The  Helpful  Bot  16:38, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Whereas my responses already represent my best effort to communicate my position on the specific propositions to which I responded, and whereas they are deemed unacceptable, I am therefore striking my posts and withdrawing from the RfC. ~ Ningauble (talk) 23:32, 15 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I believe that you may have been contacted in error. The campaign was intended to target those who left nondescript comments (or simply signed without commenting) at Wikipedia:SOPA initiative/Action#Blackout. Please do not feel obligated to withdraw from the discussion; that is the opposite of what was intended. —  C M B J   00:33, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I quite agree that this was bogus. Withdrawing is not an obligation, but rather a privilege that I choose to exercise. It does not matter whether the campaign participants intended this consequence: it was intended by me to be the appropriate consequence. ~ Ningauble (talk) 01:51, 16 January 2012 (UTC)


 * No, no. I mean literally that you were not in the targeted demographic at all. I'm actually the person who set forth the request and manually compiled a list of affected participants. You were not one of them. The purpose of this message was to ensure that people who supported an ambiguous measure would know that more than one option existed. It was not an attack intended to suggest that anyone's reasoning was questionable. —  C M B J   05:00, 16 January 2012 (UTC)


 * As an update, it appears that the bot's operator accidentally sent the message out to an automatically generated list of 312 usernames (including his own account and that of the project's founder, neither of whom had even participated in the poll) that was cataloged here. And again, even though in your case this was done in error, there was no intent to insinuate that your (or anyone else's) decided opinion required additional justification. The communication was designed to allow for a proper choice between the full blackout and soft blackout options, both of which were badly conflated by the poll when it began. —  C M B J   09:00, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, yes. I mean that it is the action, not the intention, that prompted me to withdraw. Before responding I had already reviewed the discussion at ANI, and surmised that this was probably a case of "mere" recklessness. Had I suspected otherwise, my reaction would have been escalatory. I consider the patently wrong message I received too silly to contest, but I consider errant bottery under color of authority too serious to ignore, so I chose to withdraw under protest. This is not the first time my contribution to a discussion has been deprecated speciously, nor is it the first time it has happened in a mass action. My decision whether to ignore, contest, or withdraw is, in each case, a personal choice based on my assessment of several factors, including but not limited to: how it might affect the matter under discussion, how it might inform the thinking of the counterparties, and how it might affect the evolution of decision making processes at Wikimedia projects generally. I freely acknowledge that my assessment of those factors is imperfect, and that the execution of my resulting actions is often ineffectual. In this case, the choice of the word "deemed" in my protest, rather than a word like "declared" that does not expressly entail a thought process, was probably a mistake. I confess that I chose it with deliberately ironic intent to underscore my impression that it was not deemed upon thoughtful consideration. I should have realized that this reversal could easily be misunderstood. If the obscurity of my remark is what prompted you to respond in terms of disavowing intent, and to treat recklessly errant bottery as an explanation rather than the thing itself which I was protesting, then I apologize for creating a theatre of the absurd in my feeble attempt to publicly protest an absurdity. Da, da. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:32, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Essay
You said that you wouldn't volunteer for a full essay, but might you make an argument is shorter form as part of Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Opinion desk/Political? Thanks, Res Mar 23:47, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your interest. Although I have been accused of eloquence at the Opinion desk, I have learned from long experience that I am not a persuasive essayist or debater. I flatter myself that I can turn a good phrase when "preaching to the choir", but that is not the same thing. Alas, such is the state of contemporary political discourse, where people often find even the terms of debate mutually incomprehensible, that it is beyond my capacity to clarify the issues for your audience, much less to argue a position effectively. I wish you luck in finding someone more capable that I. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:37, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Alright, I'll ask some others. Thanks anyway I suppose. Res Mar 21:42, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

MHP enumeration
Hallo N. I'm still interested how you would enumerate the possibilities in the MHP. Would you be so kind as to show them to me? Nijdam (talk) 06:19, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Am busy with real life. Will respond later in the week. ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:36, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Still following Sunray's page?
You were at one point clearly following the discussion here. I think we're fairly close to agreement on the introductory statement. Martin has included a statement supporting his stance. I've just now added a (draft) statement supporting my stance. I haven't brought this up, but I think we should explicitly solicit comments at talk:MHP before posting this as an RfC. If you have any thoughts or comments on any of this, I'm interested. -- Rick Block (talk) 06:36, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Having expressly and repeatedly been invited to butt out, I am not confident of the propriety of commenting on the RfC directly until it is presented to the general community as a request for comment. I may review progress on the draft request and reply to you individually if I think of anything constructive to say about it. However, I do not want to give the impression of "helping one side" so the scope of my remarks would be limited. ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:44, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I have examined the main RfC Statement section, as it now stands, and will reply in two installments. Insofar as the RFC aims to "resolve a longstanding and ongoing conflict involving many editors concerning the relative importance and prominence within the article of the 'simple' and 'conditional' solutions to the problem" by specifically offering two "ways to structure the article to resolve the conflict", my initial response will focus on how well the preamble and the two proposed structures present a clear choice for requested commenters, and the prospect for that choice resolving the conflict. This installment will not review the "Statements about this issue" section or the collapsible "Proposed text for this section" portion of Proposed structure 2, which has no counterpart in Proposed structure 1. This initial response concerns the question of What is the question?


 * 1) The preamble does a respectable job of identifying a conflict between "supporters of the 'simple' solutions and supporters of 'conditional' solutions." However, it does not seem that respondents to the RFC are being asked to support one type of solution or the other. Most people (but not all) who have participated in discussions would probably regard this as a false choice and, as the proposed structures seem to indicate, the question is how to present them rather than whether to support them.
 * 2) The preamble proposes to frame the dispute, and its resolution, as a matter of article structure. I personally doubt that structure per se really gets to the bottom of why the article has been deadlocked for so long, but it has certainly been a major bone of contention that is worth resolving. Sections have been moved around from time to time but, if I may be forgiven a hyperbolic metaphor, rearranging the deck chairs has not stopped people from setting fire to each other's favorite seat while the Titanic is sinking.
 * 3) The most significant structural difference between Proposed structures 1 and 2 lies in whether or not to include or mention conditional probability in the initial presentation of solutions. This is a clear choice for respondents to the RFC, once they ferret it out and connect the dots, but they might be forgiven for finding the RFC a bit TL;DR in coming to the point.
 * 4) There seems to be a difference between the annotations "with no disclaimers, criticisms " in Proposed structure 1 and "in a completely NPOV manner with neither presented as 'more correct' " in Proposed structure 2. Some visitors will notice that one refers to a policy and the other does not, but what this difference signifies for the actual manner of presentation, or even whether they are incompatible, may not be obvious to most.
 * 5) Another difference in structure and annotation is that Proposed structure 1 places "whether the conditional nature of the problem is relevant to its unintuitiveness" under " 'Conditional' solutions", while Proposed structure 2 places "including sources that say the reason people have so much trouble is that people have a hard time properly evaluating conditional probabilities" under "Sources of confusion". The different positions present a clear choice for respondents to the RFC, but it may be less clear what the different wording signifies for the purport of the article.

Regarding different annotations mentioned in the last two points, if these are intended to represent significant differences of opinion about what the article should say (as distinct from rearranging the deck chairs) then it might be helpful to provide some less cryptic prose clarifying the questions, and they should be mentioned in the preamble as questions that are distinct from a choice of structure, per se. If the questions are not clear, the responses are unlikely to resolve the dispute. If these are not things that respondents are being asked to decide (and it may be wise to focus on one question at a time), then it should probably be restated in a way that is less likely to leave visitors scratching their heads over the differences. I don't know if any of these remarks are helpful. I doubt that all of them are. Aren't you glad you asked? ~ Ningauble (talk) 22:26, 23 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Actually, yes, I'm glad I asked. Would you be ok with me adding a link to these comments?  I think they are more or less a more detailed version of Sunrays comment (which he just posted here).  If you're finding it hard to ferret out the essential differences presumably someone completely unfamiliar with the topic will have a very difficult time. -- Rick Block (talk) 04:37, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Feel free to cite anything I post, it is all released to the public under CC-BY-SA and GFDL. I hope the concreteness of my review helps in grappling with the difficulty indicated in Sunray's general observation about the complexity of the draft. (It's not hard for someone who has been fallowing the article for years to ferret out the bones of contention, I already know what they are. But in wading through the draft it seemed evident that newcomers to the dispute could find it challenging.) ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:27, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

MHP
Talks at Sunray's page seem to be breaking down. Any suggestions or comments? -- Rick Block (talk) 04:56, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I am not surprised by this turn of events, and was already thinking that when the RfC is pronounced dead I might expand the entry at Lamest edit wars (under Miscellameness) to say "subsequent attempts to frame Requests for Comment to settle the dispute fell apart when disputants could not agree about what it is they disagree about." Too cynical? I have taken a few stabs at the Gordian Knot in recent years, to no avail: I have neither the sword of Alexander nor the wisdom of Solomon. It might take both, in combination, to overcome one of wiki-culture's virtually inescapable failings, to wit: whenever two complementary perspectives exist but some dispute about them arises, then any attempt at a "compromise" giving due weight to each will lead to placing undue weight on disputation, thereby obscuring the very thing that complementary views might help to illuminate. I may post some thoughts on the article talk page, perhaps tomorrow or Thursday, regarding "What is the conflict about?" in a fundamental (i.e. abstract) sense. In a sense it is the same question on which the RfC is foundering. (I would start a separate thread because that one seems to be about arguing the points of view – demonstrating the conflict but not really clarifying why it exists.) I may offer a general suggestion for what to do in light of my opinion on that question, but I do not really expect it to lead to a way forward. (Including the meta-perspective I have in mind within the article would only exacerbate undue weight on contentiousness.) One can always hope that my fatalism is misguided. If I may close for now with a rumination of oblique relevance (and questionable utility):
 * When a pessimist says "the glass is half empty" and an optimist says "the glass is half full", there may or may not be an objective difference of opinion on the sufficiency of the liquid: these statements do not actually address that question. They might agree, however, that "the glass is twice as big as necessary for this amount of liquid."
 * ~ Ningauble (talk) 21:49, 19 June 2012 (UTC)


 * On second thought, I am not going to try this again. I have attempted more than once to shed light on why people arguing about MHP are not understanding each other, but it did nothing to foster mutual understanding, much less collaboration. The half-empty glass is very tall, and I do not have a long enough straw to plumb its depths. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:00, 22 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Simpler question not requiring long straws. Any comments about this suggestion?  I'm reluctant to simply throw away the RfC statement Martin and I worked out.  Thanks.  BTW - I have your talk page on my watchlist, so there's no need to poke me if/when you reply. -- Rick Block (talk) 15:42, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think it simplifies or clarifies the issue for RfC respondents to answer, and prefacing the choice between proposals with a question framed in terms of your argument against Martin's proposal could be seen as a loaded question. Would you want it to be prefaced with a question framed in terms of Martin's argument against your proposal? ~ Ningauble (talk) 19:56, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, we're arguing orthogonal points. Martin wants the whole issue framed as if it's only a matter of personal choice between "simple" and "not simple".  I think there's a POV issue with his proposal.  How do we tease out both of these with one question?  Perhaps Do you prefer proposal 1, proposal 2, or neither?  Please consider all Wikipedia policies and guidelines, in particular WP:NPOV and WP:Technical.?  Better? -- Rick Block (talk) 21:01, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I can say at least that allowing "none of the above" as a valid response is an improvement over last year's effort to propose an RfC. I am afraid that would be my choice because I think you are both offering points of view that are a tad too extreme. ~ Ningauble (talk) 02:14, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Noticing that Elen of the Roads joined the discussion on Sunray's page, I decided, against my better judgment, to go ahead and post something on the question of what the conflict is about. Although it only restates things that were discussed years ago, I hope it can help put things in a broader perspective. Even pessimists are allowed to hope. ~ Ningauble (talk) 02:14, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Invitation to comment at Monty Hall problem RfC
Because of your previous participation at Monty Hall problem, I am inviting you to comment on the following RfC:

Talk:Monty Hall problem

--Guy Macon (talk) 22:24, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikiquote
Thanks for your comments. I wasn't sure whether Wikiquote has its own ANI pages for this sort of thing, or if they come under the same umbrella. Once the editor starts linking Wikipedia articles to his selective quoting, it becomes an issue here, so it seemed appropriate to raise here, particularly given the editor's past behaviour on Wikipedia for the same issue.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 01:04, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I am still collecting my thoughts, and will be posting an opinion at Wikiquote's Village Pump "real soon now". The various Wikimedia projects are independent but closely related, so it is not unusual for Wikiquote to be the recipient of content and contention that overflows from Wikipedia. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:54, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I see you've since responded at the Village Pump. Thanks again.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 08:17, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Please respond at talk:MHP
Just so you don't miss it, I've directed a question to you here. Thanks. -- Rick Block (talk) 20:16, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I apologize for the lateness of my reply, which you may now find at the above linked thread. ~ Ningauble (talk) 18:01, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Not so bizarre
Re - Martin is (IMO) clearly trying to disrupt progress on the proposed text. -- Rick Block (talk) 16:36, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I would not necessarily impute an intent to disrupt. On the contrary, I have had a lot of experience with people who are quite surprised to find their clumsy application of parliamentary procedure backfires. Calling a question before it has been deliberated and fleshed out is a common enough mistake that I would not attribute to malice something which is so readily explained by ignorance. I chose the word "bizarre" as applicable in either case.~ Ningauble (talk) 17:06, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, keep up the good work
 ♥ VisitingPhilosopher ♥ talk ◊ contribs has given you a dove! Doves promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day happier. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a dove, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past (this fits perfectly) or a good friend. Cheers!

Spread the peace of doves by adding {{subst:Peace dove}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!

Hi Ningauble, I would like to congratulate you for your tireless and usually thankless efforts in trying to keep Wikipedia clean and of amazingly high quality. Your contributions log of deletes and reasoned arguments is truly a monument to tidying up. I try to create a little content and I am impressed by those who spend so much time on constructive improvements and are devoted to deleting the dross. The high quality produced from efforts like these is why I have chosen to visit Wikipedia for a while. Well done! ♥ VisitingPhilosopher ♥ talk ◊ contribs 08:42, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Nehwon
An article that you have been involved in editing, Nehwon, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Goustien (talk) 06:01, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Distortions in the current article (MHP)
Dear Ningauble, I read your criticism of two sections of the Monty Hall Problem article. Would you like to join my Dropbx folder with MHP sources? I am keeping away from the page because I agree with Guy Macon that it's time the regulars quit meeting there to amicably continue their quarrels, thereby putting off newcomers. I could easily add all the references required in "a second controvery" but so could you, if you had the sources to hand.

I think the article is now, actually, as good as it is going to get. The topic is huge and messy. Richard Gill (talk) 16:19, 16 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the offer, but I am keeping away from any external connections with my wiki identity.
 * I can almost agree that this is as good as it gets, but I hate to be that pessimistic. Unfortunately, this topic lies at the intersection of three difficult challenges:
 * The demonstrable inadequacy of common sense for dealing with probabilities and the remarkable resilience of common fallacy in the face of almost any explanation.
 * An almost inescapable tendency of the wiki process, in an attempting to give due weight to diverse views, to blow contention itself out of proportion.
 * As a notorious edition of the Talking Barbie doll said, "Math is hard".
 * Still, even a pessimist can hope to be proven wrong. There is enough room for improvement in the article that I would like to believe some progress is still possible. ~ Ningauble (talk) 19:03, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions 2013 review: Draft v3
Hi. You have commented on Draft v1 or v2 in the Arbitration Committee's 2013 review of the discretionary sanctions system. I thought you'd like to know Draft v3 has now been posted to the main review page. You are very welcome to comment on it on the review talk page. Regards, AGK  [•] 00:16, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

English wikiquote login help
Hello,

I am login denied in (« &lt;The user name "Visite fortuitement prolongée" has been banned from creation. It matches the following blacklist entry: &lt;code&gt; .*.{30,} &amp;lt;newaccountonly&amp;gt;&lt;/code&gt;&gt; »). In wikiquote:en:MediaWiki:Titleblacklist, the 2 last lines ("No usernames, longer than 29 characters. .*.{30,} &lt;newaccountonly&gt;", 534809) seem to match. I have no issue in and, and my username is 30 char long. Could you help me? Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 18:47, 13 April 2014 (UTC)


 * ✅. This is permanently fixed by setting the limit at Wikiquote to be the same as here at Wikipedia (39 characters). ~ Ningauble (talk) 11:25, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 19:46, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

MHP discussion
Hi, Any particular reason you don't have email enabled? As an admin I'd expect that you would. In any event, I just wanted to let you know that I probably won't be participating in the discussion at the MHP talk page any further. I think Martin and I have argued plenty more than enough for one lifetime. BTW - your point about the referencing is spot on. In its current state, many of the article's citations have little or nothing to do with what the cited references actually say. Once upon a time, this was a featured article with a citation for essentially every sentence or paragraph. No more. In the last couple of years, various folks have made substantial edits without paying any attention whatsoever to the references (and I very strongly suspect many edits have been made by folks who have not read the references being cited by the text they're editing). At this point, the relationship between the content of the article and its citations is perhaps best described as random. In the distant past this is something I might have tried to pay attention to - but having been sanctioned by ARBCOM for WP:OWN there's no frickin way I'm ever going to pay that much attention to any article (ever again). -- Rick Block (talk) 02:35, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi Rick. My email is enabled at the wiki where I am an admin. I prefer that private email be used only in situations that require confidentiality. Feel free to drop me a note if you like, but bear in mind that I am reluctant to do anything on-wiki that cannot be discussed on-wiki. I completely agree that the entire article is riddled with bogus citations. I started making a list of things to tag failed verification, but the sheer size of the problem wore me out. "Random" probably is the best that can be said in assuming good faith, but some of the wilder misrepresentations of what the sources say make it hard to maintain that assumption. I am sorry you feel burned by your experience with this article, but it is very understandable. In that distant past I greatly respected the work you did to keep the article solidly grounded on verifiable citations. Even though I have sometimes disagreed with your reading of some sources, we were always talking about what the sources actually say. The current article has become divorced from reality, and I don't know where we will ever find the kind of editors who can bring it back to earth without being burned out by the fractiousness that surrounds the subject. My warmest regards, Ningauble (talk) 17:49, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

The host is bound to maintain strict secrecy concerning the actual location of the car
This section,on the talk page, has been in existence for some time and you have not commented but you continue to revert Gerhard's edits. Could we not reach some agreement on this? Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:51, 7 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Martin, it is not the case, as suggested in your post above, that I have engaged in edit warring without discussion. Your statement is mistaken in both particulars:
 * I have not continued to revert Gerhard's edits: I undid his addition to the "Standard assumptions" section of the article one time only[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Monty_Hall_problem&diff=615691764].
 * I have commented in the talk page discussion: upon making that edit I immediately explained what I did and my reason for doing so[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Monty_Hall_problem&diff=615691818].
 * Though my comment was a brief one, I thought it gave a clear, straightforward, and sufficient reason for removing the addition. I may comment further on the discussion page if I can think of a way to being greater clarity to the situation, but I have not thought of anything that might change anyone's mind. I am frankly dismayed that this has provoked such a huge argument, giving the appearance of a battleground when Gerhard insinuates that I engage in improper conduct[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Monty_Hall_problem&diff=615702943] and that you violate the arbitration decision[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Monty_Hall_problem&diff=615761005]. If this is not going to settle down soon, it might be best for me to just keep quiet until there is impartial intervention with some sort of dispute resolution or arbitration enforcement. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:20, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry I thought you reverted twice but I see it was only once. I would not call the resulting comments a huge argument, it was a perfectly civil discussion on the necessity for the statement that you reverted and whether it added anything new.  I proposed the compromise that we should have Gerhard's statement but later on in the article.  There now seems to be some doubt about what the context of Henze remark.


 * I do not see any need for Arbcom to intervene here, this is a perfectly normal discussion about whether we should include a quote by a particular source and, if so, where. I was just drawing your attention to that discussion  You are welcome to join in that discussion. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:27, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Draft Monty Hall Re-write
There is a draft of a significant re-write of Monty Hall here. I'd appreciate your comments especially as regards WP:NPOV and with an eye to referencing or removing what content remains.SPACKlick (talk) 14:27, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Joshi
I've declined G4 - there's quite a lot of difference. Also, one heck of a lot of references for bugger all text - looks like someone is very determined to get this subject on Wikipedia... I won't suggest prod, as the tag won't last the day. I don't know how reliable these Indian papers are, but whenever I've looked at them previously they don't seem in the Guardian or Times (London) class. More like the Mirror. Peridon (talk) 15:23, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I am disappointed that the speedy deletion request was declined, but I appreciate that the new article is somewhat different than the one that was previously discussed. I will not have time to research and prepare a nomination to be discussed at Votes for Deletion until later in the week.... ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:43, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It'll either still be there, or it won't... Peridon (talk) 16:15, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It probably will: that is one (1) very determined contributor writing about one (1) very determined subject. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:26, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * He's been around since 2008, which is why I advised against wasting time on prod... Peridon (talk) 16:34, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I would not prod it for non-notability because that is what has been contested. If it is not sufficiently 'g4'able as the same old thing then it needs to be discussed again, but for now I gotta go. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:56, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay Peridon, it is listed at Articles for deletion/Kedar Joshi (2nd nomination) and discussion has been joined. Apart from new information concerning opinions about astrology, issues from the previous deletion decision are, as may have been expected, being re-argued. ~ Ningauble (talk) 21:52, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll look at in a day or so. Thanks. Peridon (talk) 17:22, 20 November 2014 (UTC)