Talk:Etenne: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 08:29, 21 March 2015

Subpages

Talk:Etenne/subpage1

To all users

It would be a good idea to review this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view

In short, the neutrality of point of view leads to an objective, "scientific" discourse, whereas non-neutrality leads to one-sided views and propaganda.

An important point is perhaps to understand that specific sympathies are not incompatible with a neutral point of view: you can like a country, a person, an amorous preference, and nevertheless be able of an objective discourse about it.

Only objectivity is credible. That's why it is vital for BoyWiki. We don't "promote", we explain and illustrate. --Etenne (talk) 12:25, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Please ask yourself before hitting the post button

Dose this have a cultural or historical relavance to boylove?
By posting this are you going to make Etenne lose sleep?

Documenting copyrights

If a respected university professor reproduces material on his own web site, and includes the following disclaimer:

"The documents available through the links below are provided for the use of researchers and scholars who might not be able to find the originals in libraries or elsewhere. It is assumed that all materials linked here are in the Public Domain, unless noted otherwise." (emphasis added)

... then can we reproduce those materials on BW? User4 (talk) 23:23, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Could you let me know your response to this question please? Thanks. User4 (talk) 21:57, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Could you link me to an example where other wiki's are doing this? So I can learn how they do it before I decide if we can do it. --Etenne (talk) 22:10, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, it's not a wiki, but it's a site by Dr Gerald Jones, who is an open BL and has written extensively about the BL "problem". His main page is:

http://exitinterview.biz

And the page with the disclaimer is:

http://exitinterview.biz/rarities/enter.htm

He has had his site for 8 years, and there has been only one complaint -- about reproducing a certain set of materials -- so he just removed them from his site. He has had no other problems about any of the other materials in 8 years even though the antis would just loveto have an excuse to "get him". User4 (talk) 22:26, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Cool, but I really need to know how other wikis handle this, particularly Wikipedia. Maybe Lysander ‎will know? I need to be able to see some kind of policy that allows this or some indication that this is an accepted and common practice on wikis. --Etenne (talk) 22:44, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

The more I think about it, this is likely not consistent with BoyWiki's TOC that wiki content be free and open licensed (unless your contribution is in the public domain). So I am thinking that we can't allow it... unless someone can show me that there is a provision for doing it. --Etenne (talk) 22:57, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Long-timer

I hadn't realized you'd been part of boylover culture for a long time. (I was trying to find a nice way of saying "you're an old-timer") I was thinking, the way to get at the truth sometimes is to look at what was going on around the time that new prohibitions were imposed. For example, what were people saying about pedophilia, adult-child sex, and child porn just before, during, and after 1977? What counter-arguments to the new legislation were raised before it became impossible to argue for that legislation's defeat or repeal without being denounced and shunned? There's usually useful information in the record from those moments in history. People made sure that their objections got recorded for people like us to read later. Lysander (talk) 03:25, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Actually, commentary made before/during/after the introduction of various laws/prohibitions is available, but unfortunately, not very widely. Are you looking for such information? If so, which specific laws interest you? User4 (talk) 10:41, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm fascinated with the history of the pedophilia/age-of-consent-reform movement, and with the political/social/cultural background surrounding major changes in legislation (for example, the banning of child porn). Also, I'm interested in how it came to be that dissident views on these topics were silenced and became impossible to express without being ostracized. I'm also interested in other cultures that look at these issues without the preconceived notions that have come to dominate the discussion in the U.S. Lysander (talk) 18:28, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

The Problem with the early internet is most of that information did not get saved. And of course, there were no Wiki's to collect and preserver that information. That is not to say all that info is completely lost but it is very had to get to. As many different people saved different things or have knowledge of different things. The hard part is getting them to share or let loose of that info. --Etenne (talk) 21:50, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

@ Lysander: I could explain it all to you, but it would be a book-length explanation. Hey, now there's an idea... Actually, I already have some books on the subject(s), but they usually intersperse facts with fiction about ChildLove, and all of them are from "The Axis of Evil" cultures (the anglophones). Anyway, have you checked out this site: http://www.marti2u.keepandshare.com ? User4 (talk) 22:14, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

@ Etenne: Yes, that's true. And archive.org has excluded almost all of the good sites, even though they have copies of them. Bastards! And individuals don't want to share the information they have for fear of giving out personal details that may lead to them being "outed". You have to be so, so careful these days. User4 (talk) 22:14, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

A suggestion to save a lot of your time

You know, you've got around 270 more entries in Dates to do...

Did you know that is possible for you to do all the entries at once for all the entries you are doing in Dates. You could do them in a text editor, then import them all at once into BW. You could save a lot of time doing that. What do you think? (and could you please respond to my other comments, etc.? I know you're busy, but I'm trying to give suggestions that will fix that! Thanks!) User4 (talk) 13:19, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I will get around to responding to your questions (you have to let me finsh my coffee first :)... however sometimes some of the questions you ask me require more thought, sometimes I simply don't know the answer, and somethings are simply not in my control to change. Even if you offered a large cash donation to BoyWiki, all the tech. people are busy on another project so anything that requires adjustments in the wiki software such as adding extensions ect, is simply not going to happen. --Etenne (talk) 13:36, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

User4, you can always resurrect ChildWiki on your own.. I'm just sayin'. Then you would have control. You gotta put your money and time where your mouth is, if you want stuff done.. Lysander (talk) 00:12, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Could you post the entire list you are posting information from in my "draft" thingy under my nick?

RE: The list that you are posting information on in Dates.

Could you post the entire list in my "draft" thingy under my nick (User4/draft)? I'd like to look at it. Thanks! User4 (talk) 14:07, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

No, it is set up as an HTML file... date/page by page. All I can tell is that it was last modified in 2003... I don't know by whom or even why it was added into the folder that contains the BoyWiki council board. However, I do believe I know which tech. guy was working on BoyWiki way back then and if I happened to run into him, I will ask. --Etenne (talk) 14:11, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Couldn't you load the file in a text editor (like Notepad) and then just put "<nowiki>" at the beginning of the file, and ""</nowiki> at the end of it, then copy the entire contents from the page you are editing, and just paste it into a message somewhere? Or, anyway, if you just post the file, I can look at the "page source" and see the whole thing. Some say I'm kinda good at .HTML... but what do they know? User4 (talk) 14:32, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

To do that wouldn't I need sftp access to download the whole folder? (I am simply your humble en.boywiki curator, I don't have that kind of access).... this is beginning to sound like work that is above my pay grade :) --Etenne (talk) 14:53, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Are we talking about just one .HTML file, or many?

If it's just one file, then don't worry - it's really easy! I assume you can load the .HTML file in your browser, right? Then do so, and right-click on the page, choose "view page source", then when that opens, press CONTROL + A to select all, then CONTROL + C to copy it, then open:

https://www.boywiki.org/en/ARTICLETEMPORARY

and past it there. Then put the "<nowiki>" at the beginning of the article, and ""</nowiki> at the end of it, then save it! See? Easy as pie! User4 (talk) 15:09, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

If it is many files, then it is a little more difficult, depending on how many files we are talking about. I can explain that if need be... User4 (talk) 15:09, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, Please explain--Etenne (talk) 15:17, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, part of the explanation was in the file you deleted. There are still things you can do, using tools like FDM, but we had not gotten to that point yet. Using FDM is still an option, and combined with the information which you deleted, would fix your problem. User4 (talk) 20:31, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Deleting things which are jointly being worked on

The stuff on ARTICLETEMPORARY is "a work in progress" - I'm still trying to find those materials, and I need the info on that page.

Fortunately (this time) I had a copy in my browser cache, so there is no need to undelete it.

BUT -- please, in the future, when someone else (other than just you) is working on something, please don't delete it without checking with the other person or people, OK? Doing so is a bit abrupt, and it might be viewed by many as just a bit "less-that-polite," don't you think? User4 (talk) 18:53, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

What happened to userspace? Lysander (talk) 19:03, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I am really not clear on what the "userspace" is, or how it works. Actually, I have no idea at all about what that means. User4 (talk) 19:18, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

In other words, put it in User:User4/ARTICLETEMPORARY. Lysander (talk) 19:34, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

We were working on it (and I still haven't got a handle on how to use "userspace" correctly), when Etenne deleted it without giving me any notice, and before I had the chance to do anything with it. User4 (talk) 20:26, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

How naughty. Where's the wooden spoon? Lysander (talk) 00:56, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I was thinking we could make him kneel on a ruler for, say, the next year or so. Or worse, make him study the difference between hosting material on a site, and merely linking to material on other sites (which is absolutely perfectly totally completely legal and acceptable, but he does not seem to understand that yet. ;-) User4 (talk) 07:53, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Maybe he understands but disagrees, or his hands are tied by BoyWiki council policy? Lysander (talk) 19:23, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

I think we need the following category:

{{CH}} [[Category:Psychology: impact on BoyLovers]]

I have created a large number of articles which could be added to that category.

How do I create the category? User4 (talk) 07:47, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Number of Encyclopedias I have on my local drive (423) which are organized as "you" suggest. BWs encyclopedia should be organized:

0

Number of Encyclopedias I have on my local drive (392) which are organized as "I" suggest that BWs encyclopedia should be organized:

Total number: 392

(not 418 - I had previously included some non-encyclopedias in that count -- I actually have more than 392, but they are on another drive not currently accessible)

Now, doesn't this say something to you about how articles should be arranged in an encyclopedia?

EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THE ABOVE is organized simply by alphabetizing the article entries, NOT by dividing entries into ARBITRARY SEPARATE CATEGORIES! User4 (talk) 09:06, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

That is nice for them however BoyWiki is going to be categorized by hierarchy, although sub-categories may be a member of more than one category. The uppermost categories in the hierarchy are Encyclopedia, Entertainment, Life and everything else is a sub-category of one these main topic areas. Keep in mind that BoyWiki is not 100 percent an encyclopedia in the same way as Wikipedia. BoyWiki does not have such a narrow scope. BoyWiki is more of a repository of information pertaining to boylove history, culture, and heritage, art... etc.... We are not "BoyWikipedia" or "BoyEncyclopedia" and were never intended to be. If BoyWiki was actually a museum with a physical local, you would find separate rooms for the different areas of study. You wouldn't find Egyptian mummies in the same room as English folk art simply because they both start with the the letter "E".

See also: https://www.boywiki.org/fr/Cat%C3%A9gorie:Espace_encyclop%C3%A9dique

--Etenne (talk) 11:11, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

You got my e-mail (the copy). We had this discussion almost a year ago. I tried explaining clearly then -- but you did not seem to understand what I was saying. You still don't seem to understand.

Have things your way - put things in your lovely (and often misleading) categories -- those categories show up BEFORE the listing of Encyclopedia articles. But, still, what skin is it off your teeth to just GIVE TO PEOPLE THE CHOICE OF EITHER SEARCHING THROUGH YOUR (ARBITRARY) CATEGORIES, OR SIMPLY SCROLLING THROUGH A LIST OF ARTICLES ARRANGED ALPHABETICALLY! By not doing so, you risk alienating visitors to BW. Or is that what you are trying to do? User4 (talk) 23:31, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

That is what portals are for. If you want to create such a portal feel free. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Portal example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Contents/Portals. --Etenne (talk) 23:44, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Your answer is nonsensical. User4 (talk) 00:04, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Pro-Pedophilia and Wikipedia Child protection

Hello, the child protection policy on Wikipedia is rather troubling it seems basically like discrimination. The policy states that any user who "attempt to advocate inappropriate adult–child relationships on- or off-wiki (e.g. by expressing the view that inappropriate relationships are not harmful to children), or who identify themselves as pedophiles, will be blocked indefinitely.". It's rather disappointing, since Wikipedia is considered one of the greatest sources for unified human knowledge. Check out the link here for more: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Child_protection Lister34 (talk) 09:21, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

The worst part of it is the "or who identify themselves as pedophiles" part. The flaws in that have been pointed out to them, but they don't care, and I doubt they would tolerate anyone removing those six words. Lysander (talk) 11:37, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

El castillo azul

That board no longer seems to have an administrative team to run the board. Since no one was monitoring that board and keeping it legal (per their agreement with Free Spirits), they were shut down --Etenne (talk) 22:34, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

not that I know of --Etenne (talk) 23:18, 13 March 2015 (

Encyclopedia of Homosexuality?

Not sure what you mean Encyclopedia of Homosexuality--Etenne (talk) 13:09, 14 March

The redirect must have been created by mistake.... I removed it.--Etenne (talk) 14:18, 14

Alvaro de Luna

The username in the logs can also be redacted by those who have the deletelogentry right. It would also be necessary to delete the revisions that include the signature. Perhaps we should warn people from the get-go to choose their username with care, since it's hard to redact it everywhere once it's been in use for awhile. This is especially true if people are exporting the wiki's content and importing it into other wikis, or if there are mirrors of BoyWiki containing outdated versions of our pages; redacting our copy wouldn't redact their copy. Lysander (talk) 17:28, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't have access. Sorry. Lysander (talk) 19:22, 14 March

Spain

Done Category:Spain

Mary Kay Letourneau

Because this was a wildly reported and well known story involving a boy, I think in this case it would be OK. --Etenne (talk) 20:10, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Clock

I don't think it makes a difference because the time stamp on your posts I believe is set by the wiki software... in this case, it's set to somewhere in Europe... I think. --Etenne (talk) 21:34, 14 March 2015

Wikipedia

No, Someone posted a few links to BC once but that was a long time ago. --Etenne (talk) 00:19, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Maybe we can get that BC link, and also we can do our own sleuthing. It's typically the same usual suspects getting these articles deleted, so you can look in the deletion log and in their contributions (perhaps narrow it down to pages starting with "User talk:" (to find deletion debate notifications) or "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/" if you want to focus on those). If a banned user's sockpuppet gets unmasked, there will usually be a mass deletion of pages he created, so keep an eye out for those in the deletion log.

We should start compiling that list of deleted articles here, and then maybe eventually we can find a Wikipedia sysop who will retrieve the text of those articles for us, so we can post those as subpages of, e.g., BoyWiki:Deleted Wikipedia articles (or whatever we want to call it). We should also create articles about these usual suspects, to draw attention to their contributions. Lysander (talk) 00:39, 15 March 2015

Start here: http://web.archive.org/web/20081006080947/http://www.deletionpedia.dbatley.com/w/index.php?title=Main_Page
... then here: http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.deletionpedia.dbatley.com/w/index.php?title=Main_Page
... also, Wikipedia is regularly crawled by archive.org robots, so you can review the history of all articles, and by entering the name of an article you know was deleted, you can then see the "deleted" message, and go back to earlier crawls, and find the page.
Then (for articles in the past couple of years _only_, try: deletionpedia.org/en/Special:Random
(... I've been typing so much today that my fingers are bleeding! ) User4 (talk) 22:07, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Speaking up

I can understand why some people are scared to speak up for liberty, justice, etc. because they don't want to be labelled as pedophiles or pedophile sympathizers for supporting sexual freedom. It could negatively impact their families, careers, etc. But what explains why people don't stand up for those things anonymously? For example, why aren't there more editors of BoyWiki? They don't have to worry about getting kicked off this site, as would be the case at Wikipedia, for telling the whole truth.

There's probably a large minority of the public that supports greater sexual freedom. Where are they? Why aren't they here? For that matter, why aren't there more boylovers here; why is BoyChat so much more popular than BoyWiki, when it comes to sites people want to participate in? Lysander (talk) 05:24, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

I am sure there are lots of reasons, some people are afraid of even trying to learn basic wiki code, don't feel they have the time to do this, lack the skills necessary to write a factual article (even though wiki is pretty much formula writing), but more likely, it is much easier to argue and give opinions on BoyChat about topics you know nothing about than to actually put in the time to do a bit of fact checking. (reference: Facebook, Twitter, and most News, Blog, and YouTube comments :). --Etenne (talk) 10:16, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

@Lysander - People respond out of their own needs - either real needs, or artificially created needs. That is what advertising is all about. But - it must be done correctly. And that is where education, experience, empathy, and knowledge come in.

@Etenne. Effectively motivating people -- that is where education, experience, empathy, and knowledge come in. User4 (talk) 22:15, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Cost-benefit analysis

I think it would be interesting to consider, (1) how much suffering do child pornography laws prevent, by deterring child sexual abuse and the viewing of the images resulting from that abuse; and (2) how much suffering do child pornography laws cause, through incarceration of children's parents?

Let's suppose there are two alternate universes. In universe A, child porn laws are enforced; in universe B, they aren't. In universe A, 100 child porn videos are produced, and viewed by 100,000 people; and 50,000 people are locked up for child porn offenses. In universe B, 1,000 child porn videos are produced, and viewed by 10,000,000 people. So, we have a difference of 900 victims, and the universe B victims suffer more because their videos are viewed more.

However, in universe A, 50,000 people are locked up, so their children have to deal with the absence of their parent. Why would it be considered worth this cost in human suffering to the innocent, to prevent 900 people from being victimized, and to reduce the suffering of those 100 who were victimized anyway?

Looking at the current state of affairs, there seem to be a small number of child porn series being distributed to a large number of viewers, many of whom eventually get busted. Might not a cost-benefit analysis show that this is causing more harm to children than it's preventing? Lysander (talk) 08:59, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

You're looking at "the problem" wrong. It's really simply a matter of "the transfer of funds" between certain individuals and groups. There are tens of thousands who benefit financially from the current situation (mostly from the redirection of tax dollars) so -- in effect -- tax dollars are being redirected to "the pedo problem," which benefits those in the medical-industrial-prison complex, and fucks the pedos and their families (but what do they care about that?). There is a net loss to the system, of course. Breaking windows is not a good economic stimulus policy -- it only (wastefully) redirects resources. User4 (talk) 22:23, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Crack and CP laws

I saw a quote by J.M. Balkin, "Status hierarchies are often preserved by appeals to morality. Assertions about what is moral and immoral, normal and deviant, honorable and dishonorable are not smokescreens for illicit motivation, but the very fabric of a system of social domination."

So, for example, heterosexuals have higher status when homosexual behavior is deemed immoral. Likewise, crack smoking is considered more immoral than cocaine snorting, so the law punished crack offenses more harshly. It just happens that blacks are usually the ones dealing crack, so they get the harshest penalties. Coincidence?

Psychologists, judges, etc. will often say that they have no problem with people thinking pedophilic thoughts, as long as they don't touch children or possess child pornography. It seems to me that's like telling a Christian you have no problem with him practicing his religion as long as he doesn't possess a Bible. There are in fact religions that might view possessing a Bible as immoral, since they would consider it to contain blasphemous statements.

The child porn laws seem like basically a backdoor way of punishing people for being pedophiles, rather than for actually having adult-child sex. Lysander (talk) 09:09, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, no doubt. For many Antis including law makers and people in the criminal justice system, the goal has never been to "protect the children", and has always been to identify and punish pedophiles even if they have committed no crime. See Criminal class.

A good example of this is, I was told by someone that the NGO know as, "The National Center for Missing & Exploited Children" (which as far as I can tell is only a front for anti-pedophile lobbying) tried to get the police to stop one of B4U-ACT's conferences and did their utmost to intimidate the participants (both MAPs and non-MAPs alike). What does members of the MAP community meeting with mental health professionals to discuss humane mental health treatment have anything to do with this NGO's stated mission? --Etenne (talk) 10:38, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

I think people feel that it's dangerous for pedophiles to associate with each other or be members of organizations, since those groups could become fronts for organized child exploitation. People only want pedophiles to meet each other in the context of group therapy sessions in which there's an expectation that they snitch on each other whenever they become aware of someone's engaging in risk-relevant thoughts or behavior; and actually, the average citizen isn't all that happy about those therapy sessions going on anywhere near his backyard. It is considered essential that clinicians who are staunchly opposed to pedophilia be in charge of these sessions, of course, and that pedophiles have no voice in organizations like the APAs that play a role in stigmatizing and pathologizing their attractions and otherwise deciding their fate.

Normally, people respect the right of even those groups they're opposed to, to lobby for political change. That doesn't apply to pedophiles. Although I see that "When asked whether he saw any difference between advocates for legalization and advocated for pedophiles, Donnie Marshall, Deputy Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), responded that he did not see a difference", in practice it's not considered as socially acceptable to listen to what pedophiles have to say, as it is to listen to the arguments of drug legalizers. It's assumed that pedophiles just want to rationalize their behavior (although drug legalizers are also sometimes accused of wanting to use drugs themselves). Lysander (talk) 20:11, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

That doesn't apply to pedophiles. Lysander (talk) 20:03, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

You can't listen to what the demons say - Satan is directing them. "Good" must triumph over "Evil". It is, after all, the "Christian way". User4 (talk) 23:05, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

The younger generations are increasingly secular, so at some point secular arguments will need to be made to support these policies. Lysander (talk) 00:32, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Scribunto

Is there any way we can get Scribunto installed? It would come in handy for templates that invoke modules. Thanks, Lysander (talk) 10:41, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Like I told User4, right now no. All the Free Spirits techs. are working on another large project and nothing is going to get done until that is finished. From their perspective, BoyWiki is updated and secure and is not a priority right now and they have other more pressing matters to devote their limited time to fixing. --Etenne (talk) 10:47, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Can we get it put on a list of tasks that we need done when they get the time? Lysander (talk) 18:45, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

That depends, first I would have to run it past the BoyWiki Council, then if they agree, I can ask the tech. and if he agrees then yes. --Etenne (talk) 18:52, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Cool, thanks. Scribunto has come a long way since its first release, I think; I just installed it on a MediaWiki 24.1 installation yesterday and it worked immediately. Lysander (talk) 18:55, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

The first question I am going to get asked is, does it present any security issues? Could it be used nefariously? --Etenne (talk) 18:58, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, that's what I was thinking too, but I don't know the answer. It's used on Wikimedia sites, including the English Wikipedia, so presumably they've found a way to lock it down and make it secure. Maybe it's secure right out of the box; that would be my guess. There are a lot of eyeballs looking at any code that's to be deployed on WMF sites. Also, even for extensions that aren't for deployment on WMF sites, the MediaWiki.org community is pretty security-conscious, and won't hesitate to tag extensions with a big loud warning if they are found or even suspected to have any possible security risks. Rest assured that Scribunto has no Microsoft logo.

More and more Wikipedia templates require Scribunto in order to work. For example, Template:Essay, Template:Archives, and Template:Infobox court case. I'd like to be able to copy over and use these templates. Lysander (talk) 19:05, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

I asked about adding the category tree, that's the best I can do for today. I just got out of the hospital and I am not at all well so bare with me.--Etenne (talk) 22:46, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Oh! Take your rest, and get well soon. Thanks for making the heroic effort to be here at all. Your consistency is probably why BoyWiki still exists. Lysander (talk) 22:53, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I posted your request to the BoyWiki council to get their input. --Etenne (talk) 22:59, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Lysander (talk) 01:00, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Bad faith

I notice that sex offender treatment programs, and the general public, tend to regard pedophiles as making arguments in bad faith. In fact, if you're someone who expresses sympathy with pedophiles and supportive of sexual freedom, they'll assume you're a pedophile selfishly seeking excuses to molest kids, because what else could explain support for such views? However, it's assumed that people who make contrary arguments act selflessly.

Isn't it normally assumed that all interest groups act selfishly, and that there's nothing wrong with this? It's assumed that in a democracy, everything will be okay because the majority will keep in check any minority factions that want to promote their own selfish views at the expense of society. But the majority, too, will do this out of selfishness.

What it comes down to is that people treat this issue differently than other issues because they have a hatred of pedophiles, regardless of whether or not they commit any crimes. They hate age-of-consent activists, not so much because they worry that they will succeed in lowering the age of consent, but because they believe "only a pedophile would make that argument" and because they hate pedophiles, they hate anyone who would make that argument.

It's not that they believe that making pro-pedophilia arguments will convince more people to commit offenses. Because after all, they believe "only a pedophile would make that argument"; therefore, it's impossible that a propensity to commit sex offenses would spread through argumentation, since only people who are already pedophiles are susceptible to believing those arguments. (They also don't believe in pedophiles' ability to refrain from committing sex offenses, even though they say that it's a choice to commit those offenses.)

The clinicians have a different attitude than the general public; they believe that through treatment, the risk of offending can be reduced. But they still believe that the risk will always be high enough that these patients will need to be intrusively monitored, and their liberty restricted. In the end, they pretty much hate pedophiles too, but they work within the framework of a system that usually releases sex offenders back into the population eventually. Lysander (talk) 21:13, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

"They have god on their side". Case closed... User4 (talk) 23:08, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Collateral damage

I was thinking, maybe one of the reasons why people hate pedophiles is because of the collateral damage from the war on pedophilia that has affected non-pedophiles. It's similar to how there was collateral damage from the war on homosexuality. Guys were afraid to hug or otherwise show affection toward each other, for fear of being considered gay, or arousing suspicions that they were gay. They also had to reject any other kinds of behaviors, mannerisms, styles of dress, etc. that might seem gay. To ward off any possible suspicions, they had to seem as anti-gay as possible at every opportunity by bashing homosexuality and homosexuals. Also, they probably resented the self-censorship and restrictions on their behavior that were necessary in order to put forth a certain appearance.

It's the same way with pedophilia. People are scared to death of arousing suspicions of being a pedophile. So they feel they can't show affection to children, for instance (e.g. by physical touch, buying them gifts, etc.), because of what people might think. To deflect any possible suspicion as much as they can, they bash pedophiles and pedophilia every chance they get. They resent having to censor themselves from showing even non-sexual love for children, and they blame it on pedophiles.

Once it became okay to be gay, there was no need for heterosexuals to try to avoid any gay-seeming behaviors, because even if someone were to draw the incorrect conclusion that they were gay, it wouldn't matter. Likewise, once it becomes okay to be a pedophile, it won't matter if someone mistakes a non-pedophile's gestures of non-sexual love for a child as motivated by pedophilia. We will all be freer to be ourselves, regardless of our orientation. Lysander (talk) 22:08, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Here's a little (academic) test for you...

Why is the category "Scientific literature" (which I believe you created) actually erroneous? User4 (talk) 23:39, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Easy because it should be "Academic literature" but I believe that it was you who requested I create that category and I likely did not want to argue with you over something that trivial. I know that Scientific literature actually means scientific journals and periodicals etc. As always, you are free to add your own categories as appropriate and I really hate categorizing other peoples work but since no one here seems to understand [[Category:MY TOPIC]] I am forced to add topics that I know nothing about to categories, that I care less about..then listen to you bitch because you are unhappy. I suggest if you want it in the right category.... you learn to understand our category structure and do it yourself! --Etenne (talk) 00:09, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

'Easy because it should be "Academic literature"'

Nope. Sorry, but that is the wrong answer. Try again.

"As always, you are free to add your own categories as appropriate..."

Is that a lie, or are you simply giving a twisted version of the truth? Articles that I have included in several categories - one of which was "Encyclopedia," you have then gone back and removed the Encyclopedia category.

So, I am "free to add [my] own categories as appropriate," and you are "free to arbitrarily decide that the Encyclopedia category is 'not appropriate'" and remove it.

Then - how could it be that I am "free to add categories" (and Encyclopedia is indeed an "appropriate" category) given that you will just remove that category?

Lest you forget: Easy because it should be "Academic literature" is not the correct answer. Try again. User4 (talk) 01:35, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, I've felt some guilt over leaving stuff uncategorized. But it's tougher here than on Wikipedia. Wikipedia already has an established category scheme covering several million articles, so it's relatively easy to fit new articles into that scheme by looking for related articles or typing part of a possible category into HotCat and seeing what it suggests. Also, there are plenty of wikignomes on Wikipedia who love spending all their time categorizing other people's articles. Here, we don't always have those advantages. Also, BoyWiki's categorization scheme is a little eccentric. Maybe there's a help page about categorization somewhere? Help:Categories?

@Lysander: "A little eccentric?" That is a masterful understatement.

There are a lot of sites with unusual schemes; for example, Mises Wiki has an argumentation namespace. Sometimes I wonder if BoyWiki could benefit from something like that, but it would depend on users' being willing to contribute content to it. Lysander (talk) 05:12, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

There are BoyWiki users who sometimes dump a bunch of text into mainspace and expect others to clean it up, or maybe they figured they were going to clean it up themselves later, when they got around to it. I think to myself, couldn't they have at least written a decent, properly formatted first sentence summarizing what the article is about? But whatever, I take one for the team by fixing it. Lysander (talk) 00:31, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Frankly, Just add it to the a new and most generic 2ed level or third level category you can think of. Right now, we don't have enough entries for "French artists from the 1800's born in Paris". --Etenne (talk) 00:38, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Can we also request installation of CategoryTree? It could make it easier and quicker to explore the categories and find out what's there. Lysander (talk) 00:46, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

The problem is that it was designed for Wikipedia and many of our categories may be more BL specific. I wish I know an easy way to do this or had one one of them guys who enjoy that sort of thing. I will think about it and maybe when I am less tired and have less on my mind... I might come up with something. --Etenne (talk) 01:05, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

I haven't noticed a problem with it on wikis other than Wikipedia. Lysander (talk) 01:49, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

In Reality.

Hey, you guys. In reality, is Wikipedia a factual and trustworthy resource on the internet? The ultimate goal of Wiki is to be a "sum of all human knowledge". I am just wondering here whether it is a reliable resource of information to improve pages on this Wiki? Lister34 (talk) 04:24, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Jimbo wrote, 'Remember, an encyclopedia is not a data dump. The word "sum" has a purpose in that statement... an encyclopedia is not "all human knowledge" it is the "sum" of all human knowledge. It is specifically delimited for very good reasons.' Inevitably some information is lost when you only keep the sum of a bunch of numbers and discard the numbers themselves. Lysander (talk) 04:38, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. could you please explain what you are tring to state here, Lysander? Lister34 (talk) 05:35, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Where Wikipedia lies or misleads, it's mostly by omission rather than commission. That's part of the reason why BoyWiki exists. Lysander (talk) 05:45, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Mabe, could you list some of the times in which Wikipedia has done these things that you are talking about here? Lister34 (talk) 08:29, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

@@ Line 327: / Line 327: @@
 :::Thank you. could you please explain what you are tring to state here, Lysander? [[User:Lister34|Lister34]] ([[User talk:Lister34|talk]]) 05:35, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 ::::Where Wikipedia lies or misleads, it's mostly by omission rather than commission. That's part of the reason why BoyWiki exists. [[User:Lysander|Lysander]] ([[User talk:Lysander|talk]]) 05:45, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
+:::: Mabe, could you list some of the times in which Wikipedia has done these things that you are talking about here? [[User:Lister34|Lister34]] ([[User talk:Lister34|talk]]) 08:29, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Anonymous

Search