Talk:Etenne: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 02:16, 10 May 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?

To all BoyWiki users:Naming

The convention for naming pages is that articles should be singular whereas categories should be plural.

Names of topics and topic categories should be singular, normally corresponding to the name of a BoyWiki. article. Examples: "Law" (which represents a body of knowledge), "France", "George W. Bush".

Names of set categories should be plural. Examples: "Writers", "Villages in Poland".

However, I am willing to hear counter arguments to this practice or suggestions before deciding what the policy should be --Etenne (talk) 13:17, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Just yesterday I noticed that Wikipedia has categories with a singular title, e.g. wikipedia:Category:Vagina. Also, there are some plural article titles, e.g.wikipedia:Jews. Lysander (talk) 15:13, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

You can't figure out what those two (obvious, at least, to me) errors are due to? Uh... You certainly make up in glibness what you lack in perspicacity. User4 (talk) 02:37, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Enlighten me. Lysander (talk) 03:16, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Hey! You didn't enlighten me about what those two errors are due to. Lysander (talk) 04:10, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Do you have an text editor that handles carriage returns (CR) and line feed (LF) in search/replace functions?

If for some reason you don't want to download the NoteTab light program linked to above, before I put in all the time to search for an alternative, I need to know if you have some such editor, which would help immensely in your editing of files for BoyChat. I also have noticed that you have not responded to earlier posts of mine here on your talk page, and I can't help but wonder if there is any specific reason for that.

User4 (talk) 19:15, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

It's not that... just like you, I have been very busy in the last few days and I don't see it getting any better for at least a week. Plus with my recent health problems, it's not been a fun time for me. One of the BoyWiki admins just pointed out to me that on fr.boywiki there are a few entries on Japan that could be translated and added... which he feels are better qulity then what we have now... how's your french? :)

--Etenne (talk) 19:26, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I have a way with languages... part of my "magic" you might say... Links, please? (I hope the articles are not very long... I'd really like to finish some other stuff I'm in the middle of)...

User4 (talk) 20:12, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

The Japan article is in your hands now, at least for the magic that you can do that I don't know how to. I won't touch it until you finish fixing what you can, OK?

User4 (talk) 20:59, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Happy now? Do I get a cookie for being a good boy?

User4 (talk) 21:30, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it looks like I am going to be in Japan for a few days to correct the code and then I need to go back and read the original French and correct some of the translation errors. And to be quite frank, my French is getting a bit rusty as I don't use it as much as I should. --Etenne (talk) 10:43, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

You may want to open each of the following URLs in a separate browser tab, along with the English BoyWiki Japan page in another for editing. If you want, I can fix the translation errors -- I may be faster at fixing them than you (or you may be faster at that than I am -- I don't really know).

Questioning the wisdom of encouraging users to reveal their e-mail addresses to BoyWiki (and potentially, to LEO)

Were this implemented, users could inadvertently expose themselves to being "outed".

https://www.boywiki.org/en/User:Lysander/EmailAllChanges

Template:Unsigned

If you're going to question that, then what about Special:RequestAccount, which also has an optional e-mail address field? Lysander (talk) 02:57, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Hack to avoid Wikipedia harvesting of IP addresses of BoyWiki readers who follow external links

Unintended consequences: disabling the {{w|}} template just corrupted the text of I-don't-know-how-many pages.

Here's an example:

Here is a test sentence containing an imbedded link to the wikipedia article on {{w|test}} to demonstrate the new problem of text corruption.
Here is a test sentence containing an imbedded link to the wikipedia article on test to demonstrate the new problem of text corruption.

I just did a quick check and there may be over 130 instances of the text corruption problem in various articles (not 130 articles, but 130 instances).

Linking can be made safe. See how I did the "External links" on the following page:

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

Sociogenesis or Sociogenesis

BoyWiki Russian roulette, one of these is an internal link and one is an external link (can you tell the difference?) make a choice. --Etenne (talk) 02:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

I see the difference. What do you suggest doing about it? User4 (talk) 02:59, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

130 instances exactly... if there were only a few it would be less of a problem but this is out of hand... --Etenne (talk) 02:50, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it's a serious problem, if Wikipedia is harvesting the IP addresses of those following embedded links. If you take BW offline, edit the exported .XML file of the entire site, then import it, you could fix the problem in an hour or two instead of taking days.

User4 (talk) 02:59, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Etenne, when it comes to security for Internet users, either something is a serious problem that must be addressed or it is not a problem. There is nothing in-between.

Either we take all possible steps to stop Wikipedia (and other sites) from detecting that the visitor to their site has clicked a link in a BoyWiki article, and prevent them from IP address harvesting, or else we don't worry about it at all. There is no "middle ground" on this.

So, which is it?

User4 (talk) 04:42, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Would referer hiding solve this problem? I could write an extension, if necessary, to implement this on all external links. By the way, one of the downsides of using external links instead of interwiki links is that it trips the CAPTCHA each time. Lysander (talk) 05:24, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

I believe the modifications that Lysander has made to Template:W are sufficient to solve the problem. People can now see that it is an external link and can make a choice as to whether they want to click on it or not. Again, I want to stress that the use of this template within a paragraph text is not the best editing practice and I would give preference to making internal links or if necessary use [1] or make the link a reference. --Etenne (talk) 10:20, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

I notice too, from this page, that it's the browser that sends the HTTP referer header. So the user can set up their browser to not send these headers even if we don't use rel=noreferrer. It's also possible to use this hack. By the way, interwiki links on most wikis are a slightly different color than regular wikilinks, so I wonder if BoyWiki has a non-standard setup with regard to that? There might be a way to fix that issue, e.g. by changing the CSS. Lysander (talk) 20:04, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

A few interesting graphic files you may want to use on BW are at commons.wikimedia.org

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Pederasty

User4 (talk) 01:46, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Pederasty in Ancient Greece - World Heritage Encyclopedia™ licensed under CC BY-SA

Pederasty in Ancient Greece

Sourced from World Heritage Encyclopedia™ licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0

Help to improve this article, make contributions at the Citational Source

3365380

Seems high quality
Seems unbiased
Seems "open source" (creative commons) and therefore quotable.

http://self.gutenberg.org/articles/Pederasty_in_ancient_Greece

User4 (talk) 02:44, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

I got a little farther and I saw this :(

On the one hand, the practice of pederasty is ancient and is still acceptable in some cultures. On the other hand, we cannot turn a blind eye to the fact that pederastic relationships are, more often than not, extremely traumatic to children. It is obvious that pederasts and pedophiles take advantage of and exploit young children, and we feel obligated to put an end to what we consider to be a heinous practice. Nevertheless, the practice of pederasty continues to flourish (and grow) in a lot of places, and there doesn't seem to be an end in sight.

So is is not as "unbiased" as I thought. Still, it has some good information.

User4 (talk) 02:56, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Please caution BoyWiki "users" to be more careful when creating and removing redirects

A number of links have been broken by users (editors) who carelessly create (and remove) redirects. Broken links damage the credibility of BoyWiki in the minds of visitors, something that is to be avoided at all cost, in my opinion. Yes, damage done by incompetent or thoughtless users can be undone, but only after the damage has been noted, which may not occur quickly, if ever.

We should try to appear professional in our articles whenever possible (essays aside).

User4 (talk) 12:25, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't know why you go to such great lengths to deliberately alienate volunteers who give their time freely to BoyWiki.

It is really counterproductive, not to mention damaging to BoyWiki. I don't know why you do it, unless you, in some way, wish to deliberately sabotage BoyWiki.

User4 (talk) 00:17, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

I understand the problem now. Really, I do. I know what happened.

You could have said, "I made a mistake, and I know it seems strange, but that was the easiest way to fix it." Done. No angry feelings. Makes you sound more human, too.

Or, "There was a strange software glitch, and this was the easiest way to fix the problem." Also, done. Unusual, but no further questions.

But, no. You brought out "the big guns" - "WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO DELETE ANYTHING WE WANT, WITHOUT GIVING ANY REASONS TO ANYBODY, SO SCREW YOU!" That is very abrupt, not to mention a very rude thing to say, and pisses people off. You could have held off on answering my question, and then had time to come up with one of the above responses.

I don't know if you'll understand the following: On BC, it is sometimes better NOT to cog something, because then you draw more attention to it.

You really can't afford to piss users off - there are so few, and you really need them. I suggest you keep that in mind next time you have any kind of problem that you have to deal with.

User4 (talk) 12:02, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

I have told you what I can either you accept that or you don't. Somethings don't need to be made public.

--Etenne (talk) 12:22, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

You don't have to be so hard on people all the time. If you do, they won't cooperate with you. And if they don't cooperate with you, you are left with an impossible task - that of fixing everything that needs fixing at BoyWiki all by yourself.

So, which do you think is better (and easier) for both you and for BoyWiki? To "lighten up" (which seems somewhat difficult for you to do) or to try to accomplish an impossible task, one that you can never ever finish all by yourself?

User4 (talk) 12:56, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

I personally would prefer to have maximal transparency, except where it's necessary keep information private to shield BoyWiki and its members from attacks by the state. Lysander (talk) 19:11, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Categorization

The answer to the question, "What is wrong with 'Scientific literature' as a category?" is not "Academic literature". The correct answer is, "Literature, scientific" or "Literature, academic". The main idea is Literature, and the subidea is scientific or academic.

You should (almost always) go from the larger, broader classification, then refine it into subcategories. This is the logical and professional way to do it. This is how dictionaries and encyclopedias are organized, but, of course, they also include "See ..." or "See also ..." entries.

You just created a new category, "Online history". This is problematic. The larger classification is "History" and the refinement is "online". So the category would better be "History, online" or "History, of online sites". A category "Online history" de-emphasizes the fact that we are dealing with "History," and puts the focus on "Online" as the important main classification. Ideally, there should be a "See History, online" reference/redirect under an entry "Online history" just in case someone does for some reason have it in their head that "Online" is the broader classification.

If you create a category, "Short boys literature," then you are assuming that anyone trying to get information about boys -- which includes their height -- will think of "Short" as being the broader classification, while in fact, they are more likely to think first of "Boys," and then the subcategory, "height". So, the category should not be "Short boys literature," but "Literature, about short boys," or "Literature, short boys" or "Literature, addressing boy's height". Then have a reference/redirect from "Short boys" to "Literature, short boys" or whatever.

If you create a category such as: "Boys, of short stature (literature)" then new categories naturally follow, such as "Boys, tall (literature)," "Boys, fat (literature)," "Boys, thin (literature), "Boys, ugly (literature)" etc. This is the professional way, and nonprofessionals will very soon catch on to how this method of classification works, making it easier for them to find articles that interest them.

If you respond, no matter how briefly, to the explanation I have taken almost an hour to write here, you will encourage feedback from me (and others). If you ignore the explanation I have include here, then I am very unlikely to invest any time or energy in the future in providing feedback on improving the site. Of course, the choice is yours to do as you wish, and respond or not respond. I cannot force a response from you.

User4 (talk) 12:46, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Making more use of the Agora

BoyWiki:Agora hardly gets any use. Basically people use your talk page as the de facto village pump, including when they have problems with other users or proposals for how the site could be better run. The implication is that you'll be expected to adjudicate all disputes and decide all matters of site policy that the Wiki Council doesn't care about or want to deal with. Would it be better to shift more discussion over to the Agora? Maybe that would help cultivate a culture in which people think of these discussions as matters to be decided by site consensus rather than by any wiki-dictator. I think, though, that in order for that to happen, people need to feel assured that you'll at least read the Agora (even if you don't respond to everything). Lysander (talk) 19:52, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Well I do at least try to review everything. Even though I don't try to be the niceness police, sometimes I have to be the boss. I do listen to and take seriously everyone's comments and suggestions. However, we are also in a number of ways limited in what we can do for a number of reasons including that we have many enemies and we are under constant scrutiny and attack. But yes, using the Agora more is a good idea. --Etenne (talk) 09:58, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

BoyChat message for you re: ancient Greek

http://boychat.org/messages/1435590.htm User4 (talk) 12:15, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

What do they call "essays" in newspapers?

Think about it. User4 (talk) 18:19, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Changing the article categories the way you are is only going to make more work later

It's obvious that you haven't thought through what a category system is, and how one is set up. Actually, you are only making things worse with what you are doing right now. "Boys" and "Authors" are People as well as simply Boys and Authors. {SIGH}. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Festina_lente User4 (talk) 20:32, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

I would be happy to stop if you want to do it. Plus, I have no idea what you are saying as Boy and Authors are categorized under people--Etenne (talk) 20:51, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

If I wanted to find out the names of old BoyLove websites here's what I would do

I'd go to Boylinks first. They've got many many (now defunct) listings.

But better than that, I'd ask an experienced, intelligent person how he would find those old sites. He would probably then do a 20-minute search and come up with a site like this one, http://web.archive.org/web/19970620073530/http://mavrickbbs.com/cranch/swer2.htm , which has a huge list of old BoyLove sites. Some of the links on that page even lead to archived copies of those BoyLove sites themselves!

But, of course, it would take a person of intelligence himself to recognize, and then to ask, another intelligent person to do such a search. And that may be asking a bit too much, considering the situation here at BoyWiki, and the people involved.

But in the unlikely event that such a series of unlikely events did actually happen, I would be sure to effusively thank the person for having done such a search. But that, too, that may be asking a bit too much, considering the situation here at BoyWiki, and the people involved...

Comments, anyone? User4 (talk) 00:22, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Wonder of wonder! One of the "unlikely events" really did occur! A search was done giving exactly what Etenne needed! Hmm... but Etenne didn't even have the common courtesy to be sure to "effusively thank" the one who did the search for him. Gee - I've got several tabs open with other sites, and other names that Etenne doesn't even have yet! Hmm... should I go back and get more site names for Etenne? Well, he didn't even have the decency to say "thank you" when I did it before. Aw, fuck it. I'll continue working on the books I'm preparing. At least people have the courtesy to thank me for doing those things.

User4 (talk) 10:54, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I tell you this in all sincerity, in general I am very fond of you and appreciate the efforts you make for the BL community. But there are days, when like a 2-year-old that you do ware on my nerves. --Etenne (talk) 11:04, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Ever notice how many sites that are mentioned on BC or YouTube or on other BL sites disappear after being mentioned?

It might to a good idea to be very prudent when it comes to sites that are mentioned which still exist on archive sites, so they won't disappear. Archive.org censors BL sites, or at least, has done so in the past and may do so in the future. I hope you get what I mean. User4 (talk) 03:13, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

When you find a old historical BL site do a screen cap:) We must preserver our history. --Etenne (talk) 03:31, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

There's something much better than a screen cap. Print the page using CutePDFwriter installed as a print driver. It's free, and easy to use. Google for the name and download/install the program. User4 (talk) 04:19, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Hmm... How long does it take to find/download/instal the CutePDFwriter printer driver? About two minutes in all? I wonder how long Etenne spends doing "print screen" captures of web sites? I've done it, and it is very slow and gives very poor results. But Etenne did not even acknowledge my suggestion about using CutePDFwriter! I guess he just prefers to waste his time doing screen captures. So I won't bother to give him any more good suggestions. He just ignores them, anyway. Gee, BoyWiki is a very strange place! I wonder if that's one of the reasons why it's so hard to find new editors for BoyWiki?

User4 (talk) 11:02, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Good quotes from Jim Finn former webmaster at BC

Pre-1998 quotes from him in the middle of the article. Most of it is about religious Christian boylover crap. http://www.helping-people.info/articles/oxymoron.htm

One of the users is creating innumerable "empty categories" - empty, but for ANOTHER "empty category"

which leads to a final category which then contains only A SINGLE ARTICLE. And it is clear that the other parent categories are very likely to NEVER EVER CONTAIN A SINGLE ARTICLE.

This is insane. User4 (talk) 08:25, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

You need to keep in mind that most things on BoyWiki are not written in stone. The category system we have now is just a base to build upon but in 10 years will likely be very different then what we have now, as categories are added, deleted, moved around. Rome was not built in a day, nor by one person, and was torn down and rebuilt many times, and is still changing even to this very day. --Etenne (talk) 11:54, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I think there is a misunderstanding about the nature and purpose of categories

There is a category "Films," which is well-populated with entries, as I believe it should be. There are also subcategories, such as "Documentary" etc. which also is as it should be.

If someone is interested in Films then they go to the Film category. They see a large list of articles on films. Then they see that they have the option of having the films further categorized for them, according to different interests. They say, "Yeah - I'm not interested in just any film - I want to see the ones that are documentaries!. So he clicks on the "Documentaries" category, and he's happy. Of course, the same documentary film should be in the "Film" category as well, but there the title gives no indication of exactly what kind of film it is. That is what the "Documentary" category is for - to single out certain kinds of films -- to eliminate, for the interested person, the nondocumentary films from the original larger list of films.

Another person may have an interest in the directors so he clicks on the "Directors" category.

[10 minutes later, after typing the above] To give another example, I just went back to find the category "Films" and I couldn't find it! I spent 5 minutes clicking through a dozen different links (as they are currently [mis]organized, and I couldn't return to the "Film" category to finish giving the other example!

Which is just another example of how articles are [mis]categorized on BoyWiki!!!

User4 (talk) 16:31, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Let me try to explain again. For Example, we have a category People. All articles about people should belong in that category.

Bill is a person.

He is also a young boy.

He has red hair.

He is an actor.

So he belongs in the category "People," because he is a person.

He ALSO belongs to the category "Boy," because he is a person who is a boy.

He is ALSO a boy actor, so he belongs in the category "Actors" and also to the category "Boy actors".

AND he belongs to the category "Boys with red hair" because he is a boy with red hair.

The last category is for those who have a special interest at BoyWiki in boys with red hair.

So the Bill article belongs to the following categories:

[Category:People

[Category:Boys

[Category:Actors

[Category:Boy actors

[Category:Boys with red hair

Bill does NOT just belong in any one single category above. He belongs in ALL of the categories.

Bob is a person.

He is also a young boy.

He is the U.N. representative for boys from his country.

He has brown hair.

So he belongs in the category "People," because he is a person.

He ALSO belongs to the category "Boy," because he is a person who is a boy.

He belongs to the category "United Nations because he is a U.N. representative.

AND he belongs to the category "Boys with brown hair" because he is a boy with brown hair.

The last category is for those who have a special interest in boys with brown hair.

So the Bob article belongs to the following categories:

[Category:People

[Category:Boys

[Category:Boys with brown hair

[Category:United Nations

Bob does NOT belong in just one of the above categories. He belongs in ALL of the categories above.

So somebody comes to BoyWiki, sees the main categories, says, "Yeah! People! That's what I want to see! Not animals or rocks or laws or books - People!"

He clicks on the category People, and then sees 130 or so names in a list. He says, "Hmm... I'm REALLY interested in people who are BOYS!" He sees that someone has (conveniently for him) already identified which of those names in the People category are boys. He clicks that category. Then he sees another long list of names. But he sees that there is a category "Boys with red hair". He happens to have the hots for red-haired boys! So he clicks that category, and finds the article about Bill, reads it, looks at the photo of Bill, wanks, and goes to sleep happy.

Does the above make sense to you?

I hope so, because I am tired of explaining any more about this topic. I have to go figure out how to recover the 85-page book of Boy Poetry that my OCR program can't open any more because the program has "bugs" in it. It took me 4 days to prepare that book! It was almost finished. Until I found that the OCR program has that "bug" in it. I may have to do the whole thing again! :-(

User4 (talk) 17:33, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes and no ( see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:People and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Films)

I can understand and accept that we are not yet a large enough wiki to have a category for every topic and somethings need to stay in the more general topic category (where on other larger wikis they would not) all I can say is that we need to build a little more each day (both in terms of content and category) and we will get there.

I am sorry that I disappoint you User4 but like everyone else, I have to balance my limited time between my real life and what I am able to do on the internet. I am not Supper Boylover, nor am I a prolific writer like you. I am not ignoring you or unappreciative, I simply have not had the time to fully explore your excellent suggestions. Also this is my busy time of year, and having been ill since December has put me way behind in what I need to do. I am making progress but don't expect me to be more the 1/4 here until at least the end of next month.

--Etenne (talk) 18:02, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Where is the template "This article has been criticized, or a response has been created to it."

...which goes at the top of an article, with a link to the response(s) User4 (talk) 16:16, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

You have to give me more to go on then that, can you link me to an example? --Etenne (talk) 17:02, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

https://www.boywiki.org/en/Psychopathia_Sexualis User4 (talk) 17:09, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I meant an example of a template like this... that I can recreate. You can also do this page by page using

{{Ambox}} --Etenne (talk) 17:31, 3 May 2015 (UTC).

To all editors

I have already included articles about, and links to, a number of important reference works, including The Encyclopedia of Homosexuality, Growing Up Sexually, The International Encyclopedia of Sexuality, etc.

I had hoped that editors here would have realized -- without having to be directly told -- that these resources would be useful as resources for accurate, factual, and reliable information -- information that could be included in BoyWiki articles.

Apparently I was mistaken about the capacity for editors here to think independently. It appears that editors may need to be held by the hand, and led down the path.

As this is the case, I would like to suggest the following: Please consult the above-mentioned reference works before writing articles on topics that you totally lack information on. Also, return to older articles which you have written, and update them with information from those reference works. Thank you. User4 (talk) 05:26, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Suggestion for soliciting information anonymously from BC posters for inclusion in BoyWiki articles

BC posters are familiar with posting anonymously to the BC board.

For example, if you would like posters to tell of their personal experiences in the Philippines or Thailand, few if any posters will post that on BC under their nicks, as they would be concerned about the "antis" who may be gathering personal information about them.

Few, also, will e-mail you from their e-mail accounts due to similar paranoia.

A board exists which can be posted to anonymously. But posters should use a VPN or Tor FireFox to ensure that their real IP address is not being recorded at that board.

The board is:

You could start a topic there, such as "My Philippine Experiences," and anyone could post a response to that, with their own personal experiences, and completely anonymously. In fact, you could post several topics there. Then put a notice on BC that posters can respond to your post.

The board is cleared once a day, at midnight -- but I don't know what time zone their server is.

The board fills up with junk every day as the "bots" can post to it freely, so it would be necessary for responders to scroll down to find your topic, i.e. "My Philippine Experiences," in order to post a response.

If you try this, you would have to determine the exact time the board is cleared each day, and be absolutely sure to check for responses at least once a day, preferably just before the board is cleared.

It just might work for getting sensitive input from posters because it is so simple and easy for them to respond this way. It might take some time for the idea to become acceptable, not least of which because not all people at BC regularly read all posts. So you would have to post your request for submissions repeatedly on BC to reach more posters.

It might work. There is nothing to lose by trying this, except for the time it takes you to check the board yourself. User4 (talk) 06:23, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't know. What does that mean? "My Philippine Experiences"? I hope you are not suggesting that people post about illegal acts? (or things that I would personally find offensive:)--Etenne (talk) 23:42, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps someone should interview Nycalvin. Lysander (talk) 03:47, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Certain editors at BoyWiki are "loose cannons on deck" when it comes to responsible article creation

I think it is highly irresponsible for a BoyWiki editor to create an article for BoyWiki when that editor has done virtually no research on the subject, and it is not a subject with which he has first-hand knowledge of or experience with.

I think there should be certain guidelines that must be strictly adhered to by BoyWiki editors, one of which is to do at a minimum some basic research before creating an article!

I am referring to the new (so-called) "article" Boy_Lovers_and_Zucchini_Eaters

A simple Google search reveals that a large amount of information is available on the topic of BLAZE. How could it be that a BoyWiki editor could even conceive of writing an article for BoyWiki without doing simple research on the topic first?

https://www.google.com/search?q=blaze+paedophile+group+australia&btnG=Search&hl=en&gbv=1

The mind boggles at the poor quality of the work done by certain current BoyWiki editors!

Why is this egregious editing behavior allowed at all by the Admin of BoyWiki?

User4 (talk) 07:57, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Certain BoyWiki editors have demonstrated such carelessness in article creation that their continued participation at BoyWiki should seriously be questioned.

Can no one else at BoyWiki see an example of such extraordinary carelessness in the following newly created article, Ernest Borneman on Ernest Bornemann?

I believe that BoyWiki should have a "probationary policy" for editors whose work does not meet a minimum standard of quality at BoyWiki. Should certain editors be unable to satisfy those minimum quality standards they should be prohibited from creating or editing articles at BoyWiki.

User4 (talk) 08:07, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Could you alert the other editors, especially the one who writes nonsense articles on various countries that he can click on provided links

to get information to base articles on.

Growing_Up_Sexually:_A_World_Atlas_ethnographic_content

Growing_Up_Sexually:_A_World_Atlas_country_content

International_Encyclopedia_of_Sexuality_full_contents

Encylopedia_of_Homosexuality_relevant_countries

Pacific_cultures

And he can go back and make his articles (which, so far, have been full of pure drivel) more relevant to BoyWiki? Thank you.

NOTE: I now see that I misspelled "Encyclopedia" in one above article. Could you pleas fix that? Thanks.

User4 (talk) 12:34, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

I am sorry, but my patience is running thin today. Can we all just be responsible adults for a change? Is that too much to ask for?--Etenne (talk) 12:44, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

The 2006 version of BoyWiki appears to have articles that we don't currently have.

I am not putting a link in case there are some kind of "security concerns". Do you know of any reason not to include all or most articles from the 2006 BoyWiki? User4 (talk) 07:05, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Well I was not around in 2006 but I remember reading that the database for BoyWiki became corrupt and there wasn't a back up so they ended up starting over. That would be my guess.--Etenne (talk) 11:17, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Archive.org has at least one backup, done in 2006. I suggest that someone with time go back and check which articles -- existing in the archive.org backup -- are now missing due to the corrupted database problem. Don't look at me to do that -- I am doing, and have aleady done, enough for BoyWiki and for the other projects that I am currently working on and involved in! User4 (talk) 01:47, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Excessive category creation

I believe that the minimum number of categories which create useful and meaningful classifications are all that are necessary on BoyWiki for our articles.

Excess and unnecessary category creation will only cause more problems in the future for article editing, creation, and classification, not to mention that the recent attempts at sub-category creation which we have seen done by Lysander (a girllover, and only a guest at BoyWiki) can continue infinitely, unnecessarily, and ad nauseam. User4 (talk) 01:42, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Etenne originally complained about new articles being uncategorized or put in Category:Encyclopedia; then he complained about the categories being too narrow. Since either way, I lose, I guess I'll go back to the former practice of creating uncategorized articles. Lysander (talk) 02:16, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Revision as of 01:47, 10 May 2015 view source User4 (talk \| contribs) 4,112 edits →‎The 2006 version of BoyWiki appears to have articles that we don't currently have. ← Older edit		Revision as of 02:16, 10 May 2015 view source Lysander (talk \| contribs) 2,524 edits →‎Excessive category creation: :Etenne originally complained about new articles being uncategorized or put in Category:Encyclopedia; then he complained about the categories being too narrow. Since either way, I lose, I guess I'll go back to the former Newer edit →
Line 429:		Line 429:

	Excess and unnecessary category creation will only cause more problems in the future for article editing, creation, and classification, not to mention that the recent attempts at sub-category creation which we have seen done by Lysander (a girllover, and only a guest at BoyWiki) can continue infinitely, unnecessarily, and ad nauseam. [[User:User4\|User4]] ([[User talk:User4\|talk]]) 01:42, 10 May 2015 (UTC)		Excess and unnecessary category creation will only cause more problems in the future for article editing, creation, and classification, not to mention that the recent attempts at sub-category creation which we have seen done by Lysander (a girllover, and only a guest at BoyWiki) can continue infinitely, unnecessarily, and ad nauseam. [[User:User4\|User4]] ([[User talk:User4\|talk]]) 01:42, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
			:Etenne originally complained about new articles being uncategorized or put in Category:Encyclopedia; then he complained about the categories being too narrow. Since either way, I lose, I guess I'll go back to the former practice of creating uncategorized articles. [[User:Lysander\|Lysander]] ([[User talk:Lysander\|talk]]) 02:16, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Anonymous

Search