User:User4: Difference between revisions
From BoyWiki
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
==Added pages== | ==Added pages== | ||
*[[DRAFT FOR CORRECTING CHICKEN HAWK]] | |||
*[[A Problem in Greek Ethics]] | *[[A Problem in Greek Ethics]] | ||
*[[For a Lost Soldier (Book)]] | *[[For a Lost Soldier (Book)]] | ||
Revision as of 02:03, 2 March 2015
Added pages
- DRAFT FOR CORRECTING CHICKEN HAWK
- A Problem in Greek Ethics
- For a Lost Soldier (Book)
- more quotes
- Quotes about BoyLove
- United Nations Rules for the Protection of Juveniles Deprived of their Liberty
- Geneva Declaration of the Rights of the Child, League of Nations, 1924
- Test: Are YOU a pedophile?
- Cheat sheet
- Full list of wiki markup notation
- My wiki editor help page
- tom ocarroll bio
- The Major Uranians
- Some literature
- TEMPORARY ENTRY-Misc Nambla papers, book recommendations, etc.
- Sexual Morality and the Law
- MORE JUNK
- TEST HYPERLINK|THIS HAS BEEN SUPERSEDED BY THE FOLLOWING:
- John Stamford
- Spartacus International Gay Guide
https://en.boywiki.org/wiki/New_BoyWiki_Editing_Help_Page
- Save the Children
- HTML ENTITIES
- HTML ASCII
- ASCII, OTHER
- HTML, OTHER
- COMPARISON OF WIKI MARKUP AND HTML MARKUP
- Tables
- Azov Prosecutions and Amazon.com
https://en.boywiki.org/wiki/TOC_seems_to_not_work_correctly
- Pedophilia, Science and Self-Deception
- Pedophilia - What is harmful?
- Pedophilia - Interviews with children
- Pedophilia - FAQ
- Temp_for_Filip
- Uncommon Sense (e-magazine)
- Uncommon Sense
- Quick editing/editors tips
- Computer security
- Moving pages
- TESTTHIS
- Childlove Movement
- Sodomy
Pedophilia - Is pedophilia violent? FOLLOWING FROM VARIATIONS OF FOLLOWING (THEIR HELP PAGES:
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Help:Formatting
---
Discussion 1 with Etenne
That is redundant.... add the short definitions next to the link. --Etenne (talk) 00:46, 9 April 2014 (CEST)
- Uh, oh...
- If you don't see that the links exist ONLY to make the data in the database easily accessible, and that they are NOT the "whole point of the wiki", then I see serious problems in the future for BW. The links should NOT get in the way of the information.
- The links are there only to make the information MORE accessible! BUT only when the links can be used to MAKE THE INFORMATION MORE ACCESSIBLE! Otherwise, the links are not just a nuisance and a distraction, but a threat to the existence of the wiki!
- People are NOT patient. They will NOT put up with "being given the runaround" and being forced to click on link-after-link to access a very small amount of information.
- I'm not sure you understand. The bureaucracy (the links) exists only for the PEOPLE - not the people exist only for the bureaucracy!
- If the links don't make browsing the information easier, faster, and more informative, then they should be eliminated!
This is a wiki... perhaps you should follow your own advise and read a bit more on Wiki design and go look at how the profession wiki designers are doing it and maybe you will see that we not that far off. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glossary_of_botanical_terms
--Etenne (talk) 01:47, 9 April 2014 (CEST)
- I am (almost) ready to bet you that in the past month I have read more about wiki theory and design than you have in the past 18 months of working at BW! And the botanical page you linked to appears to have HUNDREDS of definitions, NOT just a few dozen. When we have hundreds of definitions, then that page will be a good model. But NOT when we have only a few dozen definitions!
I don't agree --Etenne (talk) 02:24, 9 April 2014 (CEST)
- "I don't agree"
I don't agree that this is how this page should be structured... I think it would be better to add the short definitions next to the links like on the page with 800 links and improving the pages the pages they link to. --Etenne (talk) 02:48, 9 April 2014 (CEST)
- See Test_Glossary. THIS is what I meant it should look like (no, it is not finished) Go ahead - tell me that it is not better! Oh, BTW - you could have asked me what I meant, in the first place. But instead I had to argue with you then eventually SHOW you what I meant. All of the argument could have been avoided. I was NOT "against the structure" - I was against not putting the info on the page, which I have now done. Before, I did not want to waste the time to integrate it properly. Now I have (it took over 1 1/2 hours, not including accessing the FAQ information earlier - and it is still only 70 or 80% done). You know, I have a lot of things happening at once - not just BW.
- Look - I have seen many examples of how "Categories" and links are poorly or incorrectly used at BW. I have been trying to make the point that they should be used correctly, and in ways that "make sense" to the reader. Giving a bunch of links on a page, all needing to be clicked in order to read a few scraps of information, does not make sense. Haven't you read my comments on other pages about Categories and links? This was just one example.
- See, now the page is more like a true glossary, but with links to other more-encyclopedic entries/articles. Those entries should have Category:Encyclopedia added to them. A few of them, though, really don't contain any additional information. I'm not sure what should be done with them - they may not actually benefit from being in the category "dictionary". Perhaps the links on the "Glossary" page to those should just be removed, but the category "dictionary" left in the entries in case another form of organization of those entries is developed later on. But I doubt that we ever will have a very large number of "dictionary" entries. User4 (talk) 05:16, 9 April 2014 (CEST)
- Did you take a look at Test_Glossary? Do you still believe that this version here is superior?
- BTW There is no such thing as the DSM-V. It does not exist. I don't know why you would want to include a non-existent publication in a (supposedly) "factual" article. But I suppose that just reflects the "standard of quality" here at BW. Or is that a lack of a standard of quality? User4 (talk) 13:42, 9 April 2014 (CEST)
- Re:Test_Glossary I still like (think they were the correct way to go) the way the links were to begin with but I don't hate the way you currently have set it up.
- I have read your comments on other pages about Categories and links. I agree with you that it could be improved but I don't have a good handle on exactly what you are purposing. Somethings are easier to do then others. You say you have read all these articles and imply that you now know wiki better then me but I have seen nothing to prove that. Both ?Leucosticte and I suggested that you name and rename the draft pages you are working on to either a Namespage: project page or a user space and you are still not doing this. This is really not a big deal for me but it indicates that you are still learning. Don't get me wrong, I don't expect people to be perfect on the first go. I don't doubt that from where you were when you started to where you are now has greatly improved and that you are gaining new skills rapidly however procedurally you still lack some of the nuances. --Etenne (talk) 14:11, 9 April 2014 (CEST)
- "Both ?Leucosticte and I suggested that you name and rename the draft pages you are working on to either a Namespage: project page or a user space and you are still not doing this."
- "I am (almost) ready to bet you that in the past month I have read more about wiki theory and design than you have in the past 18 months of working at BW!
- wiki theory and design
- "I have read your comments on other pages about Categories and links. I agree with you that it could be improved but I don't have a good handle on exactly what you are purposing."
- I am proposing (rather than "purposing") that the admin here have lacked an understanding of wiki theory and design, which is a subset of webpage theory and design. But to explain all of that in detail to you, I would have to go back and review the dozens and dozens of pages I have already read on the topic, reread the .PDF files that I have downloaded and read on the subject, reread the half-dozen or so of books I have on webpage design (would you like some? that can be arranged) then summarize it here for you. I don't have time for that right now (and I doubt that I ever will, either). What you could do is to listen to my suggestions very carefully, and try to understand them, and then incorporate them into how BW. User4 (talk) 15:17, 9 April 2014 (CEST)
---
Discussion 2 with Etenne
- Most of these (IMNSHO) also belong in the category "Encyclopedia". To manually add the category to each of them would be very time-consuming. There is a way to automatically add the category to each of these, by using a "bot".
I suggest that it is essential that BW admin investigate as soon as possible the design and use of "bots" so as to save the time and effort of editors - time which could be much better spent on improving the articles rather than on "mechanical" and "repetitive" tasks, which are exactly what computer programs were designed for - to automate tasks and make life simpler and better for humans.
Until very recently, there was a user here at BW who displayed skills with "bots", but for some reason he has now (apparently) ceased to make any further contributions here at BW. Was he somehow discouraged by the actions or attitudes of some here? User4 (talk) 14:36, 9 April 2014 (CEST)
- All articles in Category:Fledgling were put there because they are incomplete. If you wish to finish any of them and add them to the appropriate categories, I would encourage you to do so.
- As for Bots, I will ask the BoyWiki counsel what they think.
- As for the user you ask about, I don't know who you are talking about?
--Etenne (talk) 14:44, 9 April 2014 (CEST)
- If all articles which are "incomplete" are excluded from the categories which they correctly belong to, then no articles should be classified in any categories.
- I see now that you, indeed, don't "get it".
- I think you need to ask yourself if you aren't making the same mistakes here that you have made elsewhere. Just because you think it is a good idea doesn't mean other people are going to automatically be on board or that what they think is right is not equally as valid. I have no problem with many of your ideas, I have no problem if you wanted to add every article from every subcategory to Category:Encyclopedia (but not remove them from their proper subcategories) and I certainly have absolutely no problem with you wanting to improve the Help:pages. Where I have a problem is with you trying to say "this has be to changed" and assuming that it is wrong when you have no idea why it was set up that way in the first place or even take into consideration that it might be correct even if you don't know why. --Etenne (talk) 17:39, 9 April 2014 (CEST)
- ---
- There are people who know how to do certain things. And there are people who don't know how to do certain things.
- There is an Arabic proverb:
"He who knows not, and knows not that he knows not, is a fool.
Shun him.
He who knows not, and knows that he knows not, is a child.
Teach him.
He who knows, and knows not that he knows, is asleep.
Wake him.
He who knows, and knows that he knows, is wise.
Follow him."
- Hmm... So what do you know? What do you think you know?
- For example, what do you know about formulating database queries?
- Did you even know that formulating database queries is what we have really been talking about all along?
- "Just because you think it is a good idea doesn't mean other people are going to automatically be on board..."
- True. That is covered in the above proverb.
- "...or that what they think is right is not equally as valid."
- Valid opinions are held by those who know. Invalid opinions are a complete waste of time. (See the above proverb.)
- Excuse me that - after having carefully, very patiently, and repeatedly, explained a number of important things - I have now become less diplomatic in my approach.
- My bad.
That being the case, I only see that you have three options:
1. Accept the things you cannot change and change the things you can. (which is what I recommend)
2. Appeal my decisions to Bron at Bron@boywiki.org
3. Decide that this is not a good fit for you and leave for which I will say, sorry to see you go.
--Etenne (talk) 19:52, 9 April 2014 (CEST)
---
- I really think you still "don't get it".
- I have not asked you to "reclassify" already classified articles.
- Do you understand what I have said needs to be done?
- Oh - and just what is this/these "decision(s)" of yours?
- And also, you might want to keep in mind your "#1" above - if you want quality work, you may have to put up with criticisms from folks with somewhat-abrasive personalities. And learn from them. And then have a much better wiki.
---
Discussion 3 with Etenne
- There seems to be some confusion on your part as to what a "wiki" is. It is a collaborative effort by a number of contributors who continually update and improve articles blah blah blah...
- Wikis are never "complete". They are always "a work in progress".
- This one has sufficient information to make it (somewhat) useful to readers, so it should be included in "Encyclopedia". And also it should be marked as needing improvement/updating/etc. User4 (talk) 15:26, 9 April 2014 (CEST)
- You still don't "get it", do you? Why should I bother trying to try to explain it to you again? Tell me, WHY? 15:54, 9 April 2014 (CEST)
- no I get it... you want to eliminate all the subcategories and place everything in Category:Encyclopedia because you don't want to use the search function, you don't want to add categories to pages that could be in mutable categories, nor do you want to use Special:AllPages If I am wrong, please explain? --Etenne (talk) 16:04, 9 April 2014
THE LAST COMMENT BY ETENNE WAS NOT RESPONDED TO MY ME BECAUSE I HAD NOT NOTICED IT BEFORE ETENNE REMOVED THE ABOVE FROM THE PAGE.
