Talk:Building a personal MAA website

Proposed for deletion

This entry it just too big of a mess and will never be fixable enough to be a useable article.

• 4. No indication of importance (Individuals, organizations, events)--Etenne (talk) 13:17, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

• 7 Abandoned entry, article, or draft left incomplete having structural issues that make it unreadable.

RE: 7 Abandoned entry, article, or draft left incomplete having structural issues that make it unreadable.

Feel free to fix it. You're the expert on wiki markup, aren't you? This article has good content. But you would delete it because you won't take a few minutes to fix the formatting? I am simply amazed'. User4 (talk) 13:35, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

It is not my entry and I have no interest in this subject. --Etenne (talk) 13:37, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Then only articles that you have an interest in should appear on BoyWiki?

What a very strange attitude to have as the one in charge of BoyWiki!

Also: This entry it just too big of a mess and will never be fixable enough to be a useable article.

That is an absurd statement, and is not factually correct. User4 (talk) 13:40, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Then prove me wrong and FIX IT!--Etenne (talk) 13:45, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

When I have proven you wrong in the past, you have gotten very angry at me, and accused me of "acting like a two-year-old child". Are you going to continue to resist constructive criticism, even if it is of a personal nature? User4 (talk) 13:50, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Just following your advice on tightening up on what is acceptable I am been accused of being too lax in what I allow and as much as I would like to, I simply can't go and recode and fix every entry. People are going to have to start putting in the work and not simply dumping stuff on BoyWiki. --Etenne (talk) 14:08, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Then you'd better consider how to get more people to join BoyWiki as editors who can do the work that is necessary, including re-coding markup when necessary. This requires skills at managing the editors -- that is, encouraging them, rather than discouraging them. But I have mentioned that before, haven't I? How many times have you said,

"Good work! Nice article! But do you think that instead of putting the references directly under the quoted sections, could you look at how it can be done with reflists? Then the article will be much better quality! Anyway, thanks for your contribution! We can all work together to make BoyWiki a better experience!"

I don't remember seeing you say anything in such a way -- which is a way that encourages those contributing their time and energy for free to BoyWiki, rather than discouraging further contributions. Do you see what I mean? User4 (talk) 14:19, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

That is a just statement. I should praise you more for the good work you do and that is my fault. I do like much of the stuff you post or see the potential for some of it it to be better in the future. I have always been your supporter (even when you call me everything but a white man). I have always felt that you have a great deal to offer BoyWiki and our community. However, I also know you can do much better work then this article represents. As it is now, is it work that your are proud of and feel is representative of your best? --Etenne (talk) 14:28, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, gee... since you put it so nicely ;-) -- I suppose that I could take 15 or 20 minutes of my time and make it much more acceptable. Not perfect, perhaps, but nearer to the quality standards of BoyWiki. User4 (talk) 14:39, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Better? User4 (talk) 15:05, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, much better although I still don't know what an "MAA website" is? Minor attracted adult? :)--Etenne (talk) 15:46, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

----------------

Yes, actually, it's almost perfect now! I'm really amazed. I apologize for saying that "This entry it just too big of a mess and will never be fixable enough to be a useable article." My mistake. And I should not have so quickly tagged the article for deletion, either. Making threats like that is wrong. Another "My mistake." Nobody is perfect ;) ... Live and learn...

I did not know that you could fix it up in just a little over 20 minutes! Could you teach me some of your "tricks"? I would like to save time editing articles, too.

I do have one question, though. I still don't know what an "MAA website" is? Minor attracted adult?

Anyway, thanks for the article. I'm sure it will be useful for those wishing to be "activists"!

--Etenne (talk) 15:46, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

NOTE: The above comment is NOT by Etenne, but is only meant as a suggestion on how to better encourage editors who are doing important work for BoyWiki User4 (talk) 20:51, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, "MAA" refers to a Minor Attracted Adult. The material was created by Kevin Brown, an activist with a long history at BoyChat. Unfortunately, I hesitate to do an article on him -- some people do not like the history of posters being given -- even though the history is all on line, and available for everyone to see!

I would like to do articles on other posters, especially activist posters. For example, martirwithacause has contributed more in terms of activism in the past 5 years or so than perhaps any other person on the Internet! But there are those who do not wish that "the truth be told" about some posters. They prefer that "the lies be told"! Can you believe it? User4 (talk) 21:05, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that is very good info to have. For me, the history of this entry is more interesting than the article itself. Please take this as me being supportive but along with improving your citations, you could work on adding/improving your introductions. Now you may feel that I am being critical but that is only because I expect great things from you --Etenne (talk) 21:56, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

I have links to a great deal of information about Kevin Brown, as well as on other posters, including martirwithacause.

Kevin Brown's history is particularly tragic! The "system" steamrolled him, and almost completely destroyed his life. He eventually did receive some recompense, but not nearly sufficient to make up for all that he lost.

It would take a lot of work to do the research for activist articles, and to write the articles. And some of the information (though factual, and with links to demonstrate the truthfulness of any claims being made) may tend to be quite controversial.

There are powerful forces at work to suppress information -- the truth -- about certain "activist" posters from becoming public knowledge, perhaps due to a wish to suppress those poster's activist work, and to protect certain other people from "embarrassment" (not from real harms). Some people do not like their faults, their mistakes, or their prejudices, to be publicly aired. User4 (talk) 22:30, 20 June 2015 (UTC)