User talk:Ningauble

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Merge discussion for Nehwon[edit]

Information.svg 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 here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Goustien (talk) 06:01, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Barnstar of Humour Hires.png The Barnstar of Good Humor
For your great sense of humor on Wikiquote. Daniel Tomé (talk) 01:15, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Distortions in the current article (MHP)[edit]

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:
  1. The demonstrable inadequacy of common sense for dealing with probabilities and the remarkable resilience of common fallacy in the face of almost any explanation.
  2. 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.
  3. 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[edit]

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[edit]


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

Yes check.svg Done. 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[edit]

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[edit]

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:
  1. I have not continued to revert Gerhard's edits: I undid his addition to the "Standard assumptions" section of the article one time only[1].
  2. I have commented in the talk page discussion: upon making that edit I immediately explained what I did and my reason for doing so[2].
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[3] and that you violate the arbitration decision[4]. 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[edit]

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)


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 Wikipedia: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)

Talk:Ludwig Wittgenstein[edit]

Hi Ninguable. I think it's usual for someone, preferably uninvolved, to close an RfC, with a summary of the consensus reached (if any) BEFORE the change being discussed is actually made? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:48, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

From Ending RfCs: "Written closing statements are not required. Editors are expected to be able to evaluate and agree upon the results of most RfCs without outside assistance."

Ample time had passed when a bot cleared the RfC notice,[5] and I thought the sense of the community was obvious. If you disagree Martinevans123, or if you think edit warring might re-erupt unless the outcome is blessed by a voice of authority, then feel free to request adjudication at an appropriate noticeboard. ~ Ningauble (talk) 18:27, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

You are quite right about a closing statement not being required. And I guess a month is long enough. I see eight nos and two yeses. And I said in the RfC, I have no strong view. So I'm happy to leave it. But I still think some kind of conclusion, at the bottom of the thread. might be advantageous. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:41, 8 July 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) 13:53, 24 November 2015 (UTC)