Shortcut

Manual archive

I've manually archived a couple of sections, as the page was over 500kb again. The first should have been archived on the 4th and the other would have been archived tomorrow. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:39, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've manually archived a couple more sections due to size issues. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:01, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've completed a third round of manual archiving, but that has only just brought the board under 500k. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:22, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe archive all the obvious threads that have been around a few days and got like one clear answer and no further responses... I know they're individually short but there are a fair number of them. Simonm223 (talk) 15:10, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately they tend to be so small as to not make any difference. For the moment I've reduced the archiving threshold, which has temporarily reduced the page size to under 500k. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:59, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 23 January 2025

Moved to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § Pegging
 – Hyphenation Expert (talk) 22:00, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am unfamiliar with how to reply to the conversation with Nat Gertler and Photos of Japan in the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard under the subject "Pegging" posted yesterday here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#c-RubyRyder-20250123051500-Pegging This seems to be the only avenue I can find to reply.

Thank you for your response. I understand the reasoning. I was asked for other sources, and below I am listing well-known sexologists and people with letters after their name who have interviewed me on their podcasts.

Cam Fraser - the Power and Pleasure of Pegging with Ruby Ryder: https://open.spotify.com/episode/0naA7WaumMhL1t5wE2vaj5?si=IFqLYzGzT_aQomGXWKvSww&nd=1&dlsi=3c896a210a7d4408

Great American Sex Podcast with Sunny Megatron - Pegging with Ruby Ryder:https://sunnymegatron.com/ruby-ryder-pegging-paradise/

Great American Sex Podcast with Sunny Megatron - Butt Stuff 201: Pegging & Vagus Nerve w/ Ruby Ryder: https://sunnymegatron.com/vagus-nerve-pegging/

Smart Sex, Smart Love with Dr Joe Kort - Ruby Ryder on Pegging - https://joekort.com/ruby-ryder-on-pegging/

Please let me know if you have further questions or if I can help in any way - and if there is a better way to respond to this conversation.

With respect, Ruby Ryder RubyRyder (talk) 19:37, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Could you comment and move this conversation to the article talk page you want to edit? We really cannot help without context around what changes you want to include. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 19:43, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think she wants that comment added to the thread "Pegging" as the page was ECP'd because of MAB. Simonm223 (talk) 19:51, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

VPP has an ongoing (ish) discussion about RSP processes

Please see § General reliability discussions have failed at reducing discussion, have become locus of conflict with external parties, and should be curtailed. Thought I'd drop a notice here (and also at WT:RSP) since there's a comment wondering why it's not at WT:RSN. Since it's at VP already though, probably best to keep it at VP to avoid forking. Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:20, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Informal) closure request

Hi, since this discussion s nominally about sourcing (but has now derailed a bit), could any passing/uninvolved editor close it? I don't think it needs a consensus evaluated as such, but closure would nullify the heat/light ratio. Thanks in advance, Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 20:05, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

citing wikipedia

Asked and answered. Bon courage (talk) 15:46, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I recently had a chat about a citation style.

Illustrated here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kirkuk%E2%80%93Haifa_oil_pipeline&oldid=1281204539#cite_ref-37

The chat was on the WP:Verifiability talk page. And it resulted in a dead end and is not a very interesting read.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability#citing_wikipedia

I am writing this to get a fourth opinion if anyone is interested. I am already eyeballing arbitration.

They don't seem to care much about Verifiability, because the citation style does not diminish it in any way. According to them, because the way WP:CIRCULAR is written, the citation style is illegal, but they are also not really defending their point, because in their mind they don't have to.

I am investing some extra effort to make the citation more useful. Should they be allowed to chase after me and undo my work? Am I really that far out of the box here? I am aware that there is a long standing policy that wikipedia should not be quoted because of reliability issues, but that policy contradicts reality and it would be more appropriate that it should not be quoted unless the editor knows what they are doing. In other words, when the rule is followed only for the sake of following the rule it stops being a policy and becomes an issue of some editors imposing their preference and style on other editors.

I am not interesting in creating a new right for everyone. I usually work on articles that are of low quality where progress is made once every few years when somebody with spare time comes around. Nobody cares about citation style rules in this part of wikipedia, because the main focus is to produce something above meme quality. The simple act of announcing where a particular source is principally handled (already summarized in context) is useful information. 2A02:2455:8423:4800:9E9B:730F:DF1B:8C15 (talk) 13:53, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Am I really that far out of the box here? Yes. There have been at least two lengthy discussions (I closed one of them) where over a dozen editors of long experience explained, at length, that they disagree entirely with your proposals. They also explained why. That you don't fully accept their explanations doesn't change that. Wikipedia talk:Verifiability was the right place to have this discussion, and you couldn't persuade anyone to change WP:CIRCULAR. You need to let this go. Mackensen (talk) 15:30, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to change WP:Circular. I am letting go of the idea to change it.
And yet, i say what i say. Is that illogical? 2A02:2455:8423:4800:9E9B:730F:DF1B:8C15 (talk) 15:39, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk%3AReliable_sources%2FNoticeboard
No tags for this post.