From BoyWiki
Jump to: navigation, search


Agora/19 September 2012

Testing the Agora

Hello all. This English BoyWiki Agora was created mostly from copying and translating the French version so hopefully it works mostly the same. Welcome to the English BoyWiki. Connor 23:27, 19 September 2012 (GMT)

Testing replies Connor 23:31, 30 September 2012 (GMT)

Agora/16 October 2012

Table of content tag

I noticed that the table of content isn't automatically displayed on a number of pages, such as Meteos, BoyChat_Steering_Committee, etc.

Yet is is automatically displayed on e.g. Adult-child_sex, Text_of_the_Boylove_Manifesto_(Russian), Absolute_Zero, Sexting.

I wondered why. According to this manual: 'For each page with more than three headings, a table of contents (TOC) is automatically generated from the section headings'

Pinocchio on the french agora pointed me to the __TOC__ tag, which forces the display of the table of content. I used it on the Azov_Films_Prosecutions page.

Good to know.

Taka 16:35, 16 October 2012 (GMT)

Agora/27 November 2012


To all scribes: beware of "over categorizing" things. This is a small wiki so we should make sure we're not making categories for things that we only have one or two of. One recent example would be the recently created category "Smart Boys." We should endeavor to make categories as broad as possible and as specific as needed but as always, the issue is open for discussion.

Good example of categories that work best here: "Boy Actors," "Boy Singers," "Boylovers in the media" and so on. Connor 21:56, 27 November 2012 (GMT)

Agora/7 June 2013

BC or BCE?

After I created 3 links from English century pages to the German and French ones, I had a look to the {{Centurybox}} template to see how to manage for centuries before year 1. I saw that the standard name by now is "1st century BC", etc.

In the French version, we didn't choose Ier siècle av. J.-C. as you can often read in French texts, but Ier siècle AEC, which can be read "Premier siècle avant l'ère commune" (First century before Common Era) or "Premier siècle avant l'ère chrétienne" (First century before Christian Era). The English equivalent is 1st century BCE.

About the English "BCE":
About the French "AEC":Ère_commune
About the German equivalent "V. u. Z.":

As the basic meaning of "BCE" is "before Common Era" ("before Christian Era" being just an alternative reading), it is much more neutral. Non-religious and non-Christian people (and there are quite a lot of them!) can be shocked if all dates overtly refer to Christianity. And even Christian boy-lovers often refuse such religious reference, because they are aware of the historical role of Churches in the repression of boy-love.

For all these reasons, I propose to change "BC" into "BCE" for dates before year 1.

(You can have a look at the French BoyWiki, where all century pages have been created from VIIe siècle AEC to XXIe siècle—all of them with links to the future English and German pages.)

Caprineus 22:23, 7 June 2013 (GMT)

Agora/6 April 2014

BoyWiki Agora

The Agora has been reset up and should now function as expected (theoretically) . --Etenne (talk) 19:54, 6 April 2014 (CEST)

When you guys try this out let me know if it works for you too. --Etenne (talk) 20:48, 6 April 2014 (CEST)

Testomg pme twp tjree

Os tjos wprlomg cprrectmu pr mpr?

User4 (talk) 22:23, 6 April 2014 (CEST)

Ha ha... but it does seem to work now:)--Etenne (talk) 23:39, 6 April 2014 (CEST)


This is in response to your discussion with Eskimo about where "computer security" should be located on BoyWiki, and the link you gave to the Portal:Encyclopedia.

Hmm... Let's see.

I click the link to get to the "Encyclopedia portal".

There, I see a definition for the word "encyclopedia". How nice. I kinda knew what an encyclopedia was, already. But thanks for telling me again.

Nothing on computer security.

I see a link to a dictionary/glossary. Hmm... maybe useful. I click on it. Then I am presented with a menu of about 40 more links to click on. I click on a few of them. One is "get together". I click it. It leads me to the "create a new article" page. Uh, I want to read the definition of "get together", NOT create the entry for it! Hmm... "The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, fourth edition" looks interesting. Oh - another damned "create an entry" page. Fuck! Then I try some of the other links, and they take me to very short entries - information that could all be on one page (like the "glossary" section). I ask myself - why do the people who run BoyWiki force me to click on so many links on the BoyWiki glossary page just to get the same information that I can find in the FAQ glossary - and by clicking only one link to get to the FAQ at BoyChat? Hmm... BoyWiki sucks!

OK - then I see a link to "Historical boylove in Rome" under "History". Boring. Maybe the Greeks would be interesting, but not the Romans. Skip that.

I see three links to News articles under "News". Nah - news about pedophiles depresses me. Skip that.

Then I see links to three articles about "Research". Dr. Milton Diamond - never heard of him. James Cantor - oh, he's that jerk who posts shit on BoyChat. Skip that. Oh, David Riegel - I heard on BoyChat that he's a fraud. Forget him.

Then there are four links to articles about "Sexuality". Sexual orientation, Pederasty, and Ephebophilia. Gee - BoyWiki has almost nothing about sexuality in their encyclopedia. I know what those three words mean. Skip that.

I see one link in "People" (Tom O'Carroll). Isn't he the guy who does those blogs? I can read his blogs. Skip that.

That's it. The "Encylopedia" on BoyWiki has twelve articles in it! And I'm not interested in most of them.

Doesn't seem a very comprehensive "encyclopedia", now, does it?

OK - I'm looking at it as "Joe Pedo" would, when he reached the Encyclopedia portal. He would feel like he had wasted his time clicking through to that Portal. There is almost nothing there to see!

Oh, and DON'T tell me that Joe Pedo should then click on the almost-invisible "Category:Encylopedia" link buried among the other links.

See - "Portal" and "Category" seem quite similar. Joe Pedo already thought that he had found the encyclopedia! So he may read one or two of the (only twelve visible) articles, will perhaps be unimpressed due to their poor quality, and give up reading BoyWiki because it seems to him to be a waste of time, and to be run by incompetents.

Then he goes to BoyChat and bitches about BoyWiki being shit.


User4 (talk) 01:58, 7 April 2014 (CEST)

Agora/7 April 2014

Problem with editing sections of Agora

I accessed Agora from my "watchlist".

The page appeared with "Add a Message" at the top. Then in the box below, it read:

To add a new message in the current page of the day, ' always use the link "Add a Message" located 
immediately above this guide. If the page does not already exist, it will be automatically created,
and your text will be added as the first message.

To respond to an existing message, click on the "edit" link to the right of the title of each section.

There is no "edit" link visible to me "to the right of the title of each section".

Maybe a bug?

User4 (talk) 10:36, 7 April 2014 (CEST)

If you don't see the "edit" next to the title of your message (when you are logged in) then my guess is that it may have something to do with how you have your browser set up. You told me before that you also don't see the buttons on the edit page for making adding the wikicode for Bold, Italic, Internal link, External link, ect... Normally when you add ==section== there will appear an edit link to the right of the section so you can edit only that section. --Etenne (talk) 12:11, 7 April 2014 (CEST)
Hmm... I'll be damned... now it appears to the right of the title. Strange... Are you sure you didn't do something to make it now appear? P~ (Or am I going blind?) User4 (talk) 12:20, 7 April 2014 (CEST)
I'm guessing, but BW logs me out at unexpected intervals. It is possible that I was automatically "logged out" without my realizing it, and then - of course - no "Edit" was visible.
Being (seemingly randomly) "logged out" by the software is a bit disconcerting when in the middle of a long edit, and then attempting to preview the edit. That has happened to me once or twice. Not Nice...
There is nothing in "Preferences" dealing with automatic log-outs. I asked you before on your "talk" page what the choice, "Keep me logged in" on the log-in page means exactly, but I have not received a response yet. User4 (talk) 12:34, 7 April 2014 (CEST)
The answer is easy... that is a new function and I don't know but my guess would be that you are correct, that it keeps you logged in until you log out. --Etenne (talk) 12:39, 7 April 2014 (CEST)
Hmm... since I don't know either what that does, and it could, perhaps, be a security risk, then I will not enable it. For me, security comes first. Sorry. User4 (talk) 12:45, 7 April 2014 (CEST)

Categories as a means of classifying information into a usable format

I have been reading up on the various types of indexes which are possible to create, on site usability, on the "user friendliness" of webpages, etc. After reading a couple of dozen pages on various sites and several long .PDF files dealing with the above, I am beginning to see the problem with how BoyWiki is organized.

To explain in detail what I have discovered would be very time-consuming. To give the admin links to all the materials I have read would be unrealistic, as I doubt they would have time to read about the subjects in great detail.

What should I do with my now in-depth understanding of the topics, and the new information I have learned?

(I had wanted to add this to a previous section I had created, but the "Edit this section" link was not available.)

User4 (talk) 10:50, 7 April 2014 (CEST)

Could somebody please create a hierarchical list of all current categories and subcategories and then post it somewhere on BW. Thank you (Second request) User4 (talk) 12:52, 7 April 2014 (CEST)

I am not sure how to generate such a list maybe ‎Leucosticte will know. --Etenne (talk) 12:57, 7 April 2014 (CEST)
The [] site does have that option. Unfortunately, it requires that javascript be enabled in one's browser. BTW - did I ever mention the real dangers of BLs enabling javascript in their browsers, and the number of BLs currently in prison for having done so? I should discuss it with you sometime.... User4 (talk) 13:53, 7 April 2014 (CEST)

Project pages

I have been giving some thought to this and until I can get namespace Draft set up all project pages should be added to [[Category:Project pages]] and moved to [[BoyWiki:pagename]] which is the only one that creates a project page right now.

Thanks, --Etenne (talk) 13:33, 7 April 2014 (CEST)

Thank you. Oh, a "tip" like this might be good to add to an "editors tips" page, don't you think? User4 (talk) 14:02, 7 April 2014 (CEST)
Yes, also another way to do this is [[User:your nick/pagename]] and also add to [[Category:Project pages]]. Like I said I want to get "Draft" added... but that might take a few days:)--Etenne (talk) 14:10, 7 April 2014 (CEST)


You would cause me a much less anxiety if you concentrated on one major project at a time ie. either reorganize Category:Encyclopedia or make our help pages useable. Given that you are still learning wiki... I would suggest concentrating on the help pages for now and once that is done, we can discuss reorganizing Category:Encyclopedia. --Etenne (talk) 13:57, 7 April 2014 (CEST)

I will be able to finish the "Editor's help page" as soon as I understand how to correctly edit BW pages. Then my accumulated knowledge will be added to that "Help" page. My "knowledge" is still in the "accumulating" stage at the moment.
RE: reorganizing Category:Encyclopedia
There are so many pages involved that we really need a "bot" to do it. Manually changing each page is a tedious, mundane, and repetitive task - one which is better done by using an automated process. See, that's why we have computers. To make life easier... User4 (talk) 14:08, 7 April 2014 (CEST)
The response from the BoyWiki counsel is this BoyWiki:Bot Policy --Etenne (talk) 21:43, 11 April 2014 (CEST)

Agora/8 April 2014

"Hover cursor over link" emerging text

You have experimented with a template for "hovering the cursor over a link" to then display text. It could be very useful for making BW more "user friendly".

Where is the template? Is it hard to use? Would it take me days-and-days of hard work to explain clearly to other editors how to use it?

User4 (talk) 18:37, 8 April 2014 (CEST)

yes, there are still some bugs... pages are not loaded every time an article is read, they remain in the browser cache. --Etenne (talk) 21:47, 8 April 2014 (CEST)
Thanks, but I must say that I am a just a bit surprised that you respond here to a question that I posted on your "talk" page.
And I am again surprised that you seemed to totally miss the very question that IS on this page:
"You have experimented with a template for "hovering the cursor over a link" to then display text. It could be very useful for making BW more "user friendly".
Where is the template? Is it hard to use? Would it take me days-and-days of hard work to explain clearly to other editors how to use it?"
Perhaps if I pose that question on your "talk" page, you would then respond to it here?
[SINGS] "Ooooh, makes ya wonder... ooooh, makes ya wonder..."
Just kidding, of course! No offense meant! P~ hmm... kind of...
User4 (talk) 22:37, 8 April 2014 (CEST)
my only excuse is I am really freakin tired right now. --Etenne (talk) 22:41, 8 April 2014 (CEST)
Trust me - I understand! Most of the time I spend working here I am so exhausted that I can barely see straight! Like, right this minute! And I am NOT kidding! User4 (talk) 23:00, 8 April 2014 (CEST)
I believe you are talking about this Template:Imagepoplink... I am still working on it and I haven't wrote any syntax/instructions yet., it seems I have more stuff I want to do then time to do it. These templates require very complicated css modifications... I plan to add more in the future but for right now... I am still working out the bugs from the upgrade. --Etenne (talk) 23:02, 8 April 2014 (CEST)

Agora/10 April 2014

Malformed links. Namespace problem?

A link such as [[Age of Consent]] does not currently work correctly because it ''should'' be [[Age of consent]] or [[age of consent]] or [[age_of_consent]].

See: Age of Consent vs. Age of consent or age of consent or age_of_consent.

You can see my edit which corrects this in the article:


... which I found here:

... as #944 of the list...

...which gives the option to "create the page":

There is a "Search" option given, which sometimes will find the correct page, but training the readers to understand and use this option is not very realistic, and the "Search" does not help the Editors much, either, as no option is given to create a "redirect" for the original error.

The Special:WantedPages has many similar errors. To manually fix these errors would be very tedious and time consuming. There are ways to automatically fix these kinds of errors - for example, by using "bots" to automatically create "redirects" for these kinds of errors.

This is important, and should be looked into by someone.

This seriously affects the "usability" of BW.

When readers click on links, they expect to find another article. When clicking these kinds of malformed links, the reader becomes frustrated.

Also, this is very confusing to Editors, as they then may create new pages when a page with the correctly-formed link may already exist. This has already happened a number of times.

You can see here:

... that the virtually-identical article does not give this same error, though the "malformed link" is identical, when you look at the page source.

So, as you see, the problem can be corrected.

User4 (talk) 12:28, 10 April 2014 (CEST)

I have asked the BoyWiki Counsel if bots will be allowed. It may take a few days to get a response. --Etenne (talk) 13:05, 10 April 2014 (CEST)

Agora/6 March 2015

Nuteral point of view on Boywiki

Does Boywiki have a policy on that content should be written in a neutral point of view such as Wikipedia does? Lister34 (talk) 05:32, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Not so much a policy as a guideline Help:Editing BoyWiki 101 though we are badly in need of a more in depth entry on this subject. Feel like something you are up to writing? --Etenne (talk) 06:14, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes.Lister34 (talk) 00:11, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
See also BoyWiki:Text_of_the_BoyWiki_proposal#Content_Guidelines. "All encyclopedic content should strive for either neutral tone or balanced tone, with opposing viewpoints given equal space." Also, Help:Contents#What_if_I_find_an_article_I_disagree_with.3F. Lysander (talk) 18:34, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
"...opposing viewpoints given equal space." You know, it is one thing to be evenhanded and open-minded and another thing to fall into the trap of "equal space." There is a lot of nonsense spouted on all sides, and if you are going to edit you have to sift the wheat from the chaff. Else you are gong to devote a hell of a lot of space to the "flat Earth society" types. Especially when it comes to pederasty. Haiduc (talk) 01:43, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
We're being generous to our opponents in doing that. The Skeptic Society does something similar, devoting quite a lot of space to giving its opponents a platform for their views in Skeptic Magazine. Of course, skeptics are in a position to have the final word, since they have editorial control over the magazine. My economics teacher likewise used to say that he was giving socialist arguments their due before demolishing them. Similarly, Marijuana Myths, Marijuana Facts devoted space to quotations from prohibitionists, which were then refuted.
Basically, the goal is to give them enough rope to hang themselves. We're treating them better than they treat us, partly because we're such nice guys, and partly because we can more effectively show how wrong they are if we begin by restating their arguments. Lysander (talk) 01:58, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Agora/6 April 2015

Doing a bit of work

I have been importing material from Wikipedia, mostly my own contributions there, some deleted, some not. Please forgive me for not cleaning up the articles and importing the images as well. Haiduc (talk) 00:35, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Agora/18 April 2015

Essays in mainspace

Do you want to include essays in mainspace, or should we create a separate namespace for them? If they are going to be put in mainspace, should they be formatted differently than other articles, so that it's immediately evident that they're essays, or does the byline adequately signal that? Lysander (talk) 19:57, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Essays should go in Category:Life. Plus to be frank, I find it really annoying when people refuse to take the time to categorize their entries properly (or expect me to do it) or following our category layout. I mean there are only three main categories, and they give explanations on what is suppose to go into each section. Category Encyclopedia is a mess and I am not going to clean it up. I will keep categories Entertainment and Life organized but it is up to you guys who are working primary in category encyclopedia to fix it. --Etenne (talk) 13:06, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
WTF? BoyWiki has no "category layout"!

It is not that it doesn't have a layout, it just needs building upon.--Etenne (talk) 20:39, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Essays should go where people can find them easily if they are interested in reading them. In fact, everything should be easy to find for anyone interested. Burying an article within one single category because it is the "correct" category, and a category that people would not normally expect that article to be found in, is an excellent way to make the articles just disappear from the reader's view.
With your way of "categorizing" (in quotes because you do not seem to understand the real reasoning and method behind categorization) you have succeeded in burying most articles on BoyWiki so they cannot be easily, if at all, found by visitors.
Why would you want to do that? Why would you not want people to be able to easily find things that interest them? Why do you seem to think that there is only "one correct category" for each article?
BoyWiki is the only wiki in the world that categorizes articles in the way that you do. Doesn't that make you think that BoyWiki perhaps is doing something wrong? Or do you think that every other wiki in the world is wrong in the way they categorize things? that is their main category which is different from ours (which is basicly Category:index which is different from others

Show me which one of your own examples uses the style of determining "the best/the only category an article belongs in," and places it in that category only?!?!

I deny that I have ever said that or even thought that. I may remove them from Category:Encyclopedia where they don't belong or place them in a single Category/subcategory because you have not taken the time to correctly categorize them yourself but I have never said that they had to go in only one category. For example, I ran across this page today Pages which may be prejudicial to BoyWiki and BoyLovers, now I have no idea why that should be in a category about US states but I did not remove it. --Etenne (talk) 18:08, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Each page I looked at places the page in several categories so that users could find the page according to the user's interest:

[[Category:Ninth Doctor television stories [[Category:Bad Wolf arc [[Category:2005 television stories [[Category:Stories set in 200000 [[Category:Series 1 (Doctor Who) stories [[Category:Stories set in 2012 [[Category:Stories set in England [[Category:Stories set in the far future

[[Category:Wikipediainfo [[Category:Writers from the real world [[Category:19th century individuals [[Category:Real world people encountered by the Ninth Doctor

[[Category:Ninth Doctor television stories [[Category:2005 television stories [[Category:Stories set in Cardiff [[Category:Stories set in 1869 [[Category:Stories set at Christmas [[Category:Bad Wolf arc [[Category:Pseudo-historical stories [[Category:Series 1 (Doctor Who) stories

[[Category:Titles [[Category:Culture & Society

[[Category:Characters [[Category:Recurring Characters [[Category:Season 1 Characters [[Category:Season 2 Characters [[Category:Status: Alive [[Category:House Lannister [[Category:House Clegane [[Category:Knights [[Category:Season 3 Characters [[Category:Characters from the Westerlands [[Category:Castellans [[Category:Season 4 Characters [[Category:Recast Characters [[Category:Nobility [[Category:Season 5 Characters

[[Category:House Bolton [[Category:Season 3 Characters [[Category:Characters [[Category:Recurring Characters [[Category:Characters from the North [[Category:Season 4 Characters [[Category:Castellans [[Category:Status: Dead [[Category:Smallfolk [[Category:Spies

[[Category:Production [[Category:Culture & Society [[Category:Costumes

[[Category:Production [[Category:Culture & Society [[Category:Costumes

So -- the examples that you yourself gave me as examples of how your method of categorizing pages in "the best category/a single category" is correct -- do NOT follow your recommended style. But they DO follow the style I am recommending.

The pages are placed in several categories so the users can find them in various ways, depending on their interests, and NOT in a single category that is "the best/the correct/the only" category.

So you have proven my point, and not your point with the examples you gave. Go figure!

I have to run -- I've got some important things to do now so I have not read the rest of your response and cannot respond to it now. User4 (talk) 17:50, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

I have no idea where you are going with this except that maybe you think that essays (non factual articles) should be categorized alone side factual entries under Category:Encyclopedia (in a subcategory) instead of under Category:life in/under Category:Essays which is where I maintain that "opinion" pieces should go? --Etenne (talk) 18:23, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
BoyWiki should allow those who understand how and why things are professionally categorized in the ways that they are to set up a "categorization layout". Of the editors who are now active, which one appears to have the most skills necessary to do that the best? You? Wanker? Lysander? Who?
The reality is that, if people don't categorize their own pages or incorrectly categorize them (esp in category encyclopedia) they end up going where I think they should go after giving it 2 seconds thought because I don't have the time to read every entry and decide what categories it belongs in and perhaps even which categories should be created. So pretty much I dump them where I approximately think they should go and maybe if I have the time later, I go back and organize. That might seem a bad way to go about it and it is... but if the authors doesn't care enough to categorize it correctly (according to the instructions that I have already given), why should I? --Etenne (talk) 13:48, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Also, you need to Keep in mind that BoyWiki was started long before I got here and the current category plan was laid out by the original BoyWiki Keeper and Curators... I am simply following their plan as to what they intended. When I started working on BoyWiki there were 4 top level Categories (Encyclopedia Entertainment, Life, with Category BoyWiki being the administrative category) There were no indices or portals and none of the templates were categorized and the main page had not been updated since May 20, 2009‎ (I started in Sept 2012). I did add the top level root category (Category:Index) because I did not want to have three completely separate root categories. My overall assessment is that we are making good progress but that we can still do a better job putting entries in to categories as we go. Plus some of the current categories are now big enough to be broken up into subcategories. At some point when I have time, I plan to re-categorize Category:Dictionary alphabetically. I simply can't do everything so when you are working on a page or add a page, you need to spend a little more time thinking about where (on BoyWiki) it should go (keeping in mind that we are not a general encyclopedia like Wikipedia) and if there are other similar entries on this subject that could justify the creation of a new subcategory. --Etenne (talk) 14:12, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

What about the possibility of mimicking Wikipedia's categorization scheme, with the exception that we would put the essays in an "essays" category? Lysander (talk) 19:14, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely Zero. We are not Wikipedia and it makes no sense to try to be like them. Nor are we going to change our top level category scheme. We need to be uniquely what we are... meaning that we need to build from the bottom up or the top down depending on your perspective. That doesn't mean we can't take a look and see how they did it and if it makes sense for BoyWiki, sure we can copy what they do. However, I don't see us ever needing categories on how to groom and fuck women and other things beyond the scope of this wiki. Are you guys really having such a difficult time naming categories on your own? or is it something else? Plus to do that you are talking about.... redoing about 8 or 9 years of work... It would take a team of people working night and day to get that done within a year and who is going to do that? I mean, I am having a hard enough time trying to get people to add things to a single category let alone rename and recategorize everything--Etenne (talk) 19:28, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Also think of it from my perspective because you know that ultimately I will get sick of the mess and work on it myself. Every times someone doesn't take 5 or 10 mins to categories their work means that I have to take that time to do it. Now multiply that by hundreds of pages and how many days, weeks etc... am I going to have to spend on doing it when I could be improving content? This also goes back to us not internal linking well enough. If what User4 said is true that people can find stuff in different categories/across categories, then we are not doing a good enough job at page linking. --Etenne (talk) 20:03, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
It's a difference in wiki-philosophies. It's sometimes considered a lost functionality that on Wikipedia, you could dump a block of unformatted text into the wiki without worrying about categorization, wikilinking, etc. People didn't mind that it was being left for later cleanup. But Wikipedia has a lot of wikignomes running around, apparently eager to do that gruntwork without complaint.
The advantage of copying Wikipedia's categorization scheme is that less effort needs to be put into developing a new categorization scheme, or learning the scheme we already have here. However, I am in favor of having a top-level category, and that seems to be the standard across the wikisphere. has mediawikiwiki:Category:Top_level and Wikipedia has wikipedia:Category:Contents, for example. Lysander (talk) 20:49, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
I understand what you are saying and in the case of general categories (second level and even third level) they work fine however the more specific categories do not. We may find one "Category:17th-century Polish painters" who is a BL or BL related but I do not think we will ever have enough to justify and to populate having that category --Etenne (talk) 21:02, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Plus I have to admit that to me that is sort of the equivalent of going to the Ku Klux Klan wiki to get the categories for the Black history wiki. --Etenne (talk) 21:14, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
That's a good point, about the specific categories; in such instances, we could travel up the hierarchy and use, instead, Category:Polish people and Category:Painters. Wikipedia would probably have Category:Polish boylovers if it weren't for their bias. In cases where their bias isn't an issue, we can use their categorization scheme for guidance, unless there's some other reason for reinventing the wheel. (If the wheel's design sucks, that can be a good reason to reinvent it.)
With regard to going to the KKK wiki for the categories, I'm reminded of how Ludwig von Mises pointed out, "The technology of Soviet Russia utilizes without scruple all the results of bourgeois physics, chemistry, and biology just as if they were valid for all classes. The Nazi engineers and physicians did not disdain to utilize the theories, discoveries, and inventions of people of 'inferior' races and nations." Even the country that persecuted Alan Turing didn't mind using his ideas. Similarly, those who hate the Nazis still use the results of Nazi human experimentation that was conducted on unwilling Jews. We don't have to agree with someone's ideology to use their unrelated technology (including categorization schemes). Lysander (talk) 21:24, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, and in some instances that will work and in some it will not so we just have to do the best we can and perhaps even use a bit of creativity and imagination at times. --Etenne (talk) 21:33, 20 April 2015 (UTC) Some of this could be used for Category:Encyclopedia --Etenne (talk) 17:47, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
I was changing around the categories a bit to mimic Wikipedia's scheme, but it's a tough decision how tall to make the hierarchy sometimes. The simplest way would be to mimic Wikipedia's structure as faithfully as possible, and then add breadth to it (e.g. with categories such as "Boylovers") rather than cutting out levels. Then it wouldn't be necessary to use as much creativity, imagination, and individual judgment. What do you think? Lysander (talk) 20:43, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Right now my opinion is whatever works best for you and the pages or areas you are working on just so long as I don't have to do it all:) I know that categorizing is not the most interesting part of wiki-ing and it's tedious work but it needs to be done. BTW, when you add a category try to remember to add the category header {{CH}} it's not a big deal, but still it is less work for me latter :) --Etenne (talk) 21:20, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Those types of tasks are good to work on during periods of depression when motivation is lacking to do much of anything else. Unfortunately, sometimes depression also kills the will to do wiki maintenance. Lysander (talk) 22:27, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Agora/20 April 2015

My next pet peeve :)

After categorizing, my next issue is that we all, including myself, need to do a better job adding internal links within the main body of our entries. The best way to do this is by looking at "what links here" as well as doing "a key word search". There has been a good deal of discussion that people aren't able to find things on BoyWiki which indicates to me that we all need to give more thought and time to internal linking.

To also occurs to me that people may not know how to do this and the syntax is:

  • To link to a category is [[:Category:Art]] or [[:Category:Art|Art]] which gives, Category:Art or Art. Don't forget to put the colon ":" at the beginning or it will be read by the wiki as you adding the entry to that category.

Agora/24 April 2015

Wanted templates

We have a backlog in Special:WantedTemplates. This contributes to further backlogs, since we don't have pages in need of cleanup in the proper categories, which would help facilitate cleanup work. Can we safely assume at this point that Scribunto will never be installed (despite the fact that the security concerns were addressed at mediawikiwiki:Extension_talk:Scribunto#Security_concerns_55170)? If so, we'll need to come up with our own templates rather than copying them from Wikipedia. So, what style do you want to use? Basically derivatives of Template:Cleanup, or something else? Lysander (talk) 22:33, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

I am open to innovation so long as it looks good and works (and is not too difficult for wiki beginners) We can't make things too complicated. --Etenne (talk) 00:17, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Is it worth investing time in creating these non-Scribunto templates to substitute for what Wikipedia implements using Scribunto, or is another attempt going to be made to get the wiki council to approve Scribunto? Lysander (talk) 03:30, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
The Wiki council has already made it's decision about Scribunto and they are not going to revisit it. Some battles are winnable and some are not. --Etenne (talk) 11:20, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
I have been working on templates for the last week or so and I have looked over a bunch of these Lua templates. I admit that having Scribunto would make it easier to add certain templates. However, I am also glad we decided not to go in that direction, at least for now. That is a very complicated programing language and far beyond the ability of the average BoyWiki users, who often have difficulty with basic wiki code. I am not even sure I would be able to learn to edit in Lua. --Etenne (talk) 12:40, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Agora/25 April 2015

Alphebatization of Spanish name

Federico García Lorca, as I explained at the beginning of the article, should be alphabetized under "G", not "L". This is how Wikipedia handles him.

However, in categories such as Category:Twentieth-century boy lovers, d he is found under "L". Can anyone fix this? Wanker (talk) 11:58, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

OK, I believe I have fixed it. There is two ways to do this the way I use is [[Category:Dramatists and playwrights|García Lorca, Federico]] this part at the end is what alphabetizes it "|García Lorca, Federico]]". The other way to do this is by using {{DEFAULTSORT:García Lorca, Federico}}--Etenne (talk) 12:05, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Agora/29 April 2015

From my perspective

First, I want to say that I think overall everyone is doing a good job (and it's appreciated) and I am very pleased with the progress we are making.

Some of the problem areas continue to be.

  1. Categorization - We have made significant improvement in this area but it will always be something we need to think about and need to develop and refine as we progress.
  2. Page linking/internal linking - This needs to be something we all think about when we are reading entries and run across key words or phrases that could be linked to other BoyWiki entries. This is an essential part of building BoyWiki.
  3. Fledgling entries and drafts - There are far too many incomplete entries on BoyWiki and we should be working on adding information to them to move them towards being more complete and informative.

--Etenne (talk) 13:30, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Agora/3 May 2015

Putting pages in Category:Encyclopedia when they're already in subcategories of Category:Encyclopedia

Why is it necessary to put pages in Category:Encyclopedia when they're already in subcategories of Category:Encyclopedia? I thought that category was only supposed to have subcategories rather than pages in it. Lysander (talk) 19:19, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Agora/6 May 2015

Wikipedia-related Articles

Hello what can be done to expand and impove the Boywiki articles related to Wikipedia and similar social and informational orgs, like Facebook, [[Twitter, Google, Wikiversity, etc. in particular, how these organizations discriminate against pedosexuals? Lister34 (talk) 06:16, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I believe that Lysander has been working on this a bit but I am sure he would welcome your assistance in building upon and improving what he has already done. You can find what he has written under Category:Wikipedia and Facebook, Google etc... --Etenne (talk) 11:42, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Thaks. Has Lysander written any other articles on orgsinizations? Lister34 (talk) 08:17, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Agora/7 May 2015

YouTube Videos

When I first started learning how to edit BoyWiki, I watched a number of the YouTube videos on wiki code and language etc... some of them were quite useful even though they were deadly dull to watch. Still, it might be useful if someone has the time to review these videos and make a list of which ones would be good to watch for beginning editors. --Etenne (talk) 11:35, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Agora/8 May 2015

Dumping copypasted blocks of text into an article

Lately we're seeing a trend in which users dump unformatted blocks of text from other sources into articles. Usually it happens when someone says, "Okay, this article is shit, so let me copy and paste this stuff above everything else, and leave it to someone else to format it properly and integrate it with the other content in the article, if they want to." Maybe this does make the article more informative, but it also puts the article into a situation of needing cleanup.

So one could say that it's both progress and a regression. It's a regression in that now the number of articles in need of cleanup has increased. On Wikipedia, such changes would likely be reverted on sight. Would it be a better practice for people to dump this kind of research into the talk page rather than into the article itself, if they're not ready to alter the content to come even close to meeting BoyWiki's style guidelines? Lysander (talk) 15:59, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Trojan Viruses?

Hello, everyone. Does thes website, Boywiki, have viruses? the Anti-virus in which I am using says that the website may have viruses on it that can be harmful to my computer. Lister34 (talk) 22:26, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Maybe your antivirus tool is, itself, malware? Lysander (talk) 22:41, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
What may be related is that sometimes -linking directly to an article from outside-I get a message saying the site's security certificate is not valid. Wanker (talk) 22:57, 8 May 2015 (UTC
A pop-up of the anti-virus MacAfee stated that this was a suspicious website. For now, I am not completely sure what "suspicious website" means. Lister34 (talk) 03:02, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
I wonder if it's on a blacklist of suspicious sites for political/ideological reasons? Kinda like how BoyChat is on Wikipedia's spam blacklist, despite its lack of spamminess? Lysander (talk) 03:44, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
Hhmm... I am not sure. Hey, here is the link to the MacAfee websoite, if you do not no what it is. Are you absolutely sure that your website does not have any computer viriuses, worms, malware, spyware and Trojan hourse viruses of any kind? Lister34 (talk) 03:57, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
More information is needed about McAfee's rationale for judging the site suspicious, to figure out what the issue might be. Lysander (talk) 03:59, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Agora/9 May 2015

Mainspace essays

Are there any standards at all for what essays should be allowed in mainspace? I've been putting all mine in my userspace. Lysander (talk) 17:03, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, all essays and personal opinion articles belong under category life. That is the main purpose of that category and why it is separate from Category:Encyclopedia. However, it is also not an anything goes category either. The entries need to be boylove specific and have relevance. So for example, an article refuting Andrew Calimach's stance on buggering in Ancient Greece is relevant, an entry on women's fashion in Ancient Greece is not (unless you have a strong reference for "cross dressing ancient Greek boys" and have an opinion on it). Also, opinion pieces still need to be referenced as much as possible and where required by law, convention, or BoyWiki policy.

In most cases, I am willing to allow, to a certain extent, off topic stuff in ones user space so long as it complies with our policies (and does not contain anything that is illegal or is likely to cause problems in MY estimation) and so long as it does not get out of control. (if you have more then 25 user pages consider that out of control) --Etenne (talk) 20:08, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

One could easily have more than 25 user pages, if one were, say, creating a lot of userboxes or using userspace as a place for meta-analyses, etc. Lysander (talk) 20:31, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
I am not sure what you mean by userboxes or meta-analyses. Can you link me to an example?--Etenne (talk) 20:36, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
Meta-analysis might be the wrong word. But I was thinking of stuff like User:User4/DRAFT/Main Index of all BoyWiki pages (must be manually updated when necessary) or User:User4/ALL BW INTERNAL LINKS TO CHECK IF VALID, which are like repositories of metadata. User4 isn't all that prolific a writer of userspace content, but he already has close to 25 pages. And I'm over the limit. Lysander (talk) 21:02, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
For the purposes of the 25 page limit (for now), I exclude draft pages that are future BoyWiki entries you are working on. I just want people to exercise some restrant and reason so that it does not become out of control. However, I will give it some more thought and decide if a policy is required.--Etenne (talk) 21:15, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
It could also be possible to just consolidate all of one's off-topic ramblings/musings into one centralized userspace page that would have hundreds or thousands of revisions in its history. Lysander (talk) 00:25, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Flying Spaghetti Monster

Is there any problem with BoyWiki's categorization scheme resembling a koosh ball or the flying spaghetti monster, in that Category:Encyclopedia forms the middle and then there are strands of categories that each end in an article? Lysander (talk) 17:55, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

If I understand correctly what you are asking then no, I think it is suppose to be like that in many instances. however keep in mind relevance to boylove and this a small wiki, somethings just will never have enough entries to be relevant categories on BoyWiki.--Etenne (talk) 20:13, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Also @ Lysander

When you make a change in a Template, you need to add the new syntax to the documentation page so people know how to use it. (See Template:Cleanup)--Etenne (talk) 20:48, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Agora/11 May 2015


I expect that users of BoyWiki behave in a professional manner both towards each other and especially towards NOT SIMPLY FUCKING AROUND AND DISRUPTING BoyWiki. I do my best to try to respect the differences in each and every users and understand that not everyone is at the same level in terms of their editing ability. I am a big boy and can take personal criticism, however, I will not tolerate people abusing their privilege to post on BoyWiki and that will get you banned. --Etenne (talk) 12:32, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I realize User4's behavior was disruptive but it was also good for a laugh. Lysander (talk) 13:43, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Block removed

I seem to have "inadvertently" blocked everyone yesterday. I have removed the block. --Etenne (talk) 13:36, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Agora/14 May 2015


My philosophy about stubs is, it's helpful to create stubs about any topic about which we can reasonably expect there's a lot material about on the Internet that's relevant to boylove. For example, all the countries and U.S. states should have articles, and each need only start with a smidgen of material directly relevant to boylove. Once we have the lead paragraph already in place, it's easy for someone to come along and add more; they don't have to create a new article from scratch.

As Metus once wrote, "Looking at the 'recent changes' page my initial assumption is confirmed: Starting a stub has a similar effect as a seed crystal. Even something as trivial as a mere definition is useful." Lysander (talk) 03:00, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Men fucking little boys

Actually I thought the men fucking little boys essay wasn't all that bad. I was going to send it to an incarcerated boylover and ask his opinion about whether the statements contained therein seemed accurate based on his experience and observation. A Newgon Wiki page made a similar argument about how "fucking kids" seemingly assumes penetration. Wanker has posted a few essays here that may seem over the top with their polemics, and not necessarily backed up with what Wikipedia would consider reliable sources, but still possibly making valid points. Lysander (talk) 14:49, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Page protection

We probably don't need to have all these pages protected, given that there are only a few users on this wiki and we basically never have edit wars. Lysander (talk) 14:59, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

I just glanced over the list, if there is a specific page or template you wish/need to have access to, you can always ask for it to be unprotected during the duration of the time you need access to it.--Etenne (talk) 11:49, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Agora/16 May 2015

Use of "alleged", "supposed", etc. in article titles

Do we want to have titles like alleged harm to victims of child abuse from the viewing of the resulting child pornography? I haven't seen a convention like that anywhere else in the wikisphere. Lysander (talk) 21:12, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

It's likely not the best practice. However, I am very tired of making helpful hints and advice by saying, "this is an area you could work to improve on..." and getting met with nothing but hostility. --Etenne (talk) 11:59, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
It's true that incivility got out of hand on this wiki. But also, it's pretty normal for a new idea to go through the stages of being ignored, ridiculed, and opposed before it's accepted. Lysander (talk) 22:18, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Agora/17 May 2015

Double redirects

There are a number of Double redirects and I wish to give people the opportunity to go and fix them before I delete the bunch of them. (as there was considerable bitching the last time I did that) I will give you all a few days to work on this (and longer if I see that it is being worked on) --Etenne (talk) 12:59, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Double redirects deleted --Etenne (talk) 18:09, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Categorization of Category:Encyclopedia

I just looked over Category:Encyclopedia and overall, I think you guys have been making good progress in building a category structure for that category. The only comment I have right now is regarding Category:Child pornography. This seems to be an area of interest for a number of writers/BoyWiki Users. I was wondering if perhaps someone could volunteer to keep that category organized? It is not too big right now but it does seem like quite a jumble of articles. --Etenne (talk) 13:17, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Agora/18 May 2015

Statement to the Gay Liberation Movement on the Issue of Man/Boy Love

Does anyone have a copy of Thorstad's Statement to the Gay Liberation Movement on the Issue of Man/Boy Love? Thanks. Lysander (talk) 05:01, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Agora/22 May 2015

Voluntarily seeking psychiatric treatment for pedophilic impulses

Suppose someone who has never been through the criminal justice system wants to voluntarily seek psychiatric treatment for pedophilic impulses. Perhaps he wants to fit into society better by admitting his fantasies to a professional and going through a program directed at helping him control or suppress his desires. Is this considered safe to do, or could it have negative consequences down the line for the person? Lysander (talk) 22:07, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Agora/23 May 2015

Sex tourism

A New York Times article about the NAMBLA newsletter says "One of those articles offers graphic 'tips on how to make that special boy feel good.' Another is a memoir by a former camp counselor who fondly recalls having sex with a 9-year-old camper, advises readers on using pornography to seduce a child and recommends travel to countries where laws on child prostitution are lax." What is NAMBLA's position on sex tourism, anyway? I see that it's mentioned in a couple issues of Zeitgeist, but without any commentary.[1][2] Lysander (talk) 17:28, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

I am not a member of NAMbLA and so I can not speak for them. I suspect that what was being said in what you read about the NAMBLA Bulletin was propaganda. My personal position is this, I am against it. I understand the arguments for this practice, and even apart from the very negative legal ramifications, I would still be against it as it as a general rule. To me, it doesn't have anything to do with boylove. On the other hand, if a BL was to take one boy who is selling sex under his wing and provide for his general well-being, education, etc... in a mutually loving and symbiotic relationship, that would be different. --Etenne (talk) 18:57, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
So I take it that therefore, logically, BoyWiki should cover sex tourism around the world as thoroughly as possible, so that BLs can see where it's being practiced and find boys to take under their wing and provide for their general well-being, education, etc. in a mutually loving and symbiotic relationship. Lysander (talk) 19:20, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
That would depend on whether you are "actively inducing" or encouraging an illegal act with a minor, or suggesting that sex with children should be pursued" which of course is a violation of Free Spirits rules and therefore BoyWiki's TOS. So that being said; yes, philanthropy i.e. ""love of humanity"( in our case particularly the love of boys) in the sense of caring, nourishing, developing and enhancing "what it is to be human" on both the benefactors' (by identifying and exercising their values in giving and volunteering) and beneficiaries' (by benefiting) parts" is a good thing IMHO --Etenne (talk) 20:05, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Agora/24 May 2015

Do people even care about the evidence?

To what extent, if any, was the American public's changing attitudes toward gays influenced by what scientists were learning about homosexuality?

I wonder this, because it often seems as though people believe that the fight to change the laws concerning adult-child sex will be influenced by science. Yet we've seen, e.g. with the Rind Report, that people will often dismiss science that supports a view they don't agree with. They will even enact laws, such as those amending the sentencing guidelines, that are contrary to common sense -- for example, punishing child pornography possession more harshly than forcible rape of a child.

So I wonder, how does one change public opinion? Is it a matter of people finally having the balls to come forward and take a stand that will attract persecution? As Edith Windsor put it, "At some point, somebody came out and said 'I'm gay,' which gave a couple more people the guts to do it. As we increasingly came out, people saw that we didn't have horns. People learned that we were their kids and their cousins and their friends."[3]

Where the science might make a difference is, occasionally, in the courtroom. Public defenders will sometimes argue that, for example, the Butner studies were flawed, if the prosecutor uses those studies to back up his argument for a harsh sentence. But judges are bound by the mandatory minimums, and required to take into consideration the sentencing guidelines, that the legislature enacts, and the legislators don't necessarily care much about science. Even if they hand down a lenient sentence, the defendant remains a felon who is required to submit to sex offender registration and all that. Lysander (talk) 21:02, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Agora/29 May 2015


Shall we create a header for essays that informs readers that the views expressed are not necessarily the opinions of BoyWiki? Lysander (talk) 18:23, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, you can if you want however I am guessing that a lot of the stuff in category essay is going to be eventually purposed for deletion because it is poorly sourced and does not have any informational, cultural, artistic, or historic significance to boylove. --Etenne (talk) 20:34, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
I thought the whole point of an essay was to do the kinds of synthesizing, editorializing, and original research in general that are prohibited by Wikipedia. Lysander (talk) 20:53, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
BoyWiki is first and foremost a cultural and historical archive of information about Boylove. It's not a blog, or BoyChat, where such things are more appropriate. However, some essays are acceptable if historically relevant, well written, comical, ect... and appropriately referenced. So for example an essay by Tom O'Carroll or some other know public figure may well be appropriate and worth being preserved and archived... simple opinion pieces by an unknown Joe Schmo are probably not.--Etenne (talk) 21:34, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Is BoyChat a suitable archive? For example, can ancient posts to BoyChat still be found by Google? BoyWiki has a few advantages, for example that the text can be wikified. Lysander (talk) 22:57, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Agora/30 May 2015


If anyone wants to review this transcript for accuracy, they're more than welcome to. A few parts were unintelligible. Lysander (talk) 21:01, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Agora/8 June 2015


I have asked the BoyWiki tech.person to make Template:Navbox collapsible so we can add multiple navboxes to pages in the future... I don't know when this feature will be available however. I imagine there is no rush as we do not yet use many of these types of navigation tools on pages. --Etenne (talk) 16:55, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

OK, well it is all done thanks to our fine tech. support person. I may ask him in the future if he can get the horizontal function to work but I did not want to push my luck :) --Etenne (talk) 17:00, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Agora/7 July 2015

Request to upload images

I have several creative commons images I would like to add to articles here. If I cannot upload them, I can send them to you for review. Thank you.

Yes, at Make sure that they are free to use. --Etenne (talk) 01:09, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Different kinds of boy love allowed on here?

So I know that this wiki focuses mainly on man-boy love, but can we write things about woman-boy love (or boy-boy or girl-boy love) as well? I thought that it might help to show boys in different combinations for romantic relationships, and help to open up the whole subject of "boys in romantic relationships" in general.

I am not quite sure what you have in mind but I would say it is OK so long as it is within reason and does not get out of hand. --Etenne (talk) 10:13, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Oh, I just had a few movies & shows I wanted to write about that portray intergen love in a positive light but they focus more on woman-boy love. I was wondering if that's okay. --Hikari (talk)
I am sure that would be fine esp. if there is a cute boy in the film :) BTW, I did not get your first email but I did get the second one and I will work on that when I can. --Etenne (talk) 12:55, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Agora/31 October 2015

Sebastian Bleisch

Should we not import the Wikipedia article on Sebastian Bleisch? __meco (talk) 13:50, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Sure feel free. As long as things relate to our history, culture they are welcome on BoyWiki. I did not read that entry in full, so I am not sure if it will need further editing to be appropriate to BoyWiki i.e. some Wikipedia entries contain derogatory terms and hate speech re: minor attraction. --Etenne (talk) 14:00, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
I have now created Sebastian Bleisch. Could someone with admin rights transfer this file which relates to the article: __meco (talk) 15:05, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I will do that but it will have to be latter today as I have to leave shortly. --Etenne (talk) 15:14, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Done--Etenne (talk) 15:09, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Agora archive difficult to access

Is this the only way to access previous discussion at Agora? That hardly makes for a vibrant forum for discussing the evolution of this wiki. __meco (talk) 15:10, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it is a limitation of the script that after so many days (I am not sure how many, it may be like a month) things become archived. --Etenne (talk) 15:16, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Could we post the link above on the main Agora page, perhaps? Or better even, transclude all past discussions on a separate archive page? __meco (talk) 15:32, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I was able to do that .--Etenne (talk) 03:57, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Category:People associated with child pornography

Is it a good Idea to have Category:People associated with child pornography under this name? Perhaps the term Pedophilic pornography should be used instead? Or maybe something else even __meco (talk) 18:20, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that is likely not the best category name. I will have to give it some thought to see what I can come up with.--Etenne (talk) 03:59, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Agora/3 November 2015

Categorizing BoyWiki users

Should we do that? We could have a Category:BoyWiki users and the for instance subset categories like active/non-active users (based on whether someone has edited in the past 6/12 months). We could also have categories that each user himself adds for e.g. location (general or more specific). __meco (talk) 13:27, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

BoyWiki needs a lot of improvement when it comes to categorization ... esp. Category:Encyclopedia. I don't have a problem if anyone wants to categorize the users however "by location" is a problem. I am embarrassed to even admit I live on the planet Earth. But what it really comes down to is a security issue. See: How not to accidentally out yourself --Etenne (talk) 13:46, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Indeed, that's why I propose only the basic active/inactive categories as mandatory and others set by the users themselves at their own discretion. __meco (talk) 13:52, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Agora/7 November 2015

Email notification

I just registered an account at ChildWiki. I notice an option for my email there to receive notifications that I don't find here on BoyWiki:

  • Email me when a page or file on my watchlist is changed
  • Email me when my user talk page is changed
  • Email me also for minor edits of pages and files
  • Email me when I make a change to a page on the wiki

Is this functionality available also here, and if so, how can I enable these options? I don't see any of these in my Preferences menu.

Did I get those options perhaps because I was immediately made an administrator over there? __meco (talk) 19:33, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

As far as I know, it is not an option we have. --Etenne (talk) 20:46, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
Do you use an older version of the MediaWiki software, perhaps? __meco (talk) 20:49, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
No, likely that function is an extension or it was turned off during the set up of BoyWiki because the tech. person thought it was a security risk. ‎Lysander would likely know --Etenne (talk) 20:56, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
The newer versions of MediaWiki are set up by default to allow these notifications. See mediawikiwiki:MediaWiki_1.23#Notifications and mediawikiwiki:Manual:Configuration_settings#Email_notification_.28Enotif.29_settings. Special:Version says that BoyWiki uses MediaWiki 1.24, so we should have that capability, if the tech person will switch it on. I agree that email notifications are more convenient than checking watchlists on several different wikis. Lysander (talk) 21:07, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
if the tech person will switch it on. You have been around here long enough to know that that is not going to happen. I have a question though, what do you use as a mail.server for ChildWiki? --Etenne (talk) 21:29, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
I don't use any special mail server; I just use what Dreamhost provides. I think they do set a quota on outgoing emails though. Lysander (talk) 22:08, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
Etenne you write: "if the tech person will switch it on. You have been around here long enough to know that that is not going to happen." I haven't been around for long so I don't know what this means. My first guess is that there are no tech persons around. Please elaborate! __meco (talk) 15:01, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
I have often described Free Spirits as the Great Boylove Bureaucracy. It took the BoyWiki counsel several years of begging just to get them to consider upgrading the software from MediaWiki 1.3.9 to the current version of MediaWik 1.24.1. You have to understand that the Free Spirits technical staff are all volunteers, all of whom have different skill levels, interests, and proficients. There are only two tech. people who know how to work on the software (both of whom are currently away) All the other tech. people are working on other major projects and are too busy to even try to learn how to manage working on the wiki software. There is also that I would have to convince them that 1. It is necessary and 2. It is not a security risk. If I could convince them of that, they might do it, when they get around to it. And even beyond all of that and at this current time, there are technical reasons (this I don't want to go into) why changes to FS email are all on hold for the time being. Some times you have to choose your battles and for me, this is a function I am not willing to go to war for with the powers-that-be. --Etenne (talk) 15:29, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
I appreciate your reply. __meco (talk) 17:03, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
It's stupid to worry about security risks from extensions that are deployed on major WMF projects like Wikipedia. If there were a way to exploit it, it would've been exploited by now. Lysander (talk) 01:22, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Yes, that's reasonable! Then you know your argument with the Counsil, Etenne! It seems sound enough! __meco (talk) 13:25, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, we have already had that discussion. In any event, my next goal is to get video. I want to be able to archive the IBLD Videos and A Decent Life: The Dissenting Narrative of Tom O'Carroll. --Etenne (talk) 13:41, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Agora/10 November 2015

Underpopulated categories

At Wikipedia there is mostly a sound understanding concerning the appropriate use of categories. One of the consensus conclusions there with which I totally agree is that very small categories should be avoided and articles should instead be migrated (upmerged) into a relevant parent category. A summary count I just made divulges that we have 34 biographical articles for people born in the 20th century. These are categorized into 27 categories which specify the year of birth, an average of 1.26 articles per category. I propose that we upmerge all of these category entries to birth by decade for the 20th century. I propose the same for 19th century births. Before that we simply have so few names, less than a handful, the they should just be lumped into one container category, Births before 1800. __meco (talk) 15:20, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

I would welcome adding them to birth by decade but I still want to keep what we have for technical reasons. The problem is Meco, you come to BoyWiki with a very strong understanding of how Wikipedia is categorized as well as how to wiki, most people don't have that expirance. I have had a bear of a time getting people to understand that we need to categories starting with a general category and then becoming more specific as naturally indicated. Some people have said that they don't like our category hierarchy of Encyclopedia, entertainment, and life which I am not willing to change because that is how our creators intended it to be set up and I would to try to maintain their vision as much as possible. Also keep in mind that BoyWiki is not primary an encyclopedia, it is the archive/museum of our history, culture, and heritage and of our expirance as boylovers. However if you wanted to work on categorizing Category:Encyclopedia that would be welcome. (see also Category talk:Encyclopedia) --Etenne (talk) 15:58, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Just so that I understand you correctly, should I add the Births by decade hierarchy and leave the articles categorized to the specific Births by year which they are in at present, or do you suggest I re-categorize but leave the Births by year categories intact but empty (an admin would be the one that'd have to delete those in any case)? __meco (talk) 17:12, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Yes add them to both decade and century (if you like) or anything else you feel would be useful and cool, but I also what to keep what we have. Chronology could almost be a full-time job for multiple people so we just have to do the best we can. In other words, I am all for adding more Chronology (including templates) I just want to keep the base we currently have. --Etenne (talk) 17:22, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Sure, by the way, I was central in developing several of the chronological category structures on both the English and the Norwegian Wikipedias. I realize that his is not an important part of this project in its current phase, but I am probably a particular resource in this respect. __meco (talk) 17:48, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Please continue to provide more info on your contributions to Wikimedia projects so that we can add it to the Meco article. Lysander (talk) 17:37, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
OK, I'll see what I can do. By principle I avoid chronicling myself to the extent it isn't necessary for explaining my work, so I'm unsure I'll devote much effort to it. __meco (talk) 18:04, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Yeah but there's no one else to do it. People aren't going to laboriously comb through your thousands of contributions. Also, some of your contributions may have been deleted; lately, it seems as though most of my contributions to Wikipedia have been getting deleted, but they are contributions nonetheless. Lysander (talk) 18:28, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Well, my position isn't that I won't chronicle my own work as long as someone else does it, so your argument doesn't change my attitude. It is not an imperative for me to "present my case". On the contrary. __meco (talk) 18:35, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Agora/12 November 2015

Created page for centralized category discussions

BoyWiki:Category discussions has been created as a one-stop location for all category-related discussions, i.e. renaming, deleting, re-structuring or other discussions related to BoyWiki's category hierarchy. I hope this is as uncontroversial as I have assumed in simply being bold and creating this without prior discussion here. __meco (talk) 13:50, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

You may have to do some work of actively trying to attract discussion here by posting elsewhere, "There's a thread on this very issue over at ..." Lysander (talk) 13:52, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
When you write "here", do you mean the Agora page? Otherwise, I think creating a template for referring to the centralized discussion venue should probably be done. __meco (talk) 16:24, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Aren't there degrees of user activity? For example, Vibrant (user is more than active with considerable constructive activity); Active (user is keeping the wiki in regular use and not overrun by spam); New (user recently signed up); In preparation (user is not ready yet to begin contributing), but would be soon; Needs Love (user hasn't been with a boy in awhile); Dormant (user contributed content, but has had no activity for more than 1 year); Spammed (user has a lot of junk messages on his talk page); Goal Reached (user contributed content, but has no activity because his mission is done); Private (user is lower-ranking than a corporal); Cannot connect (user forgot to pay his cable bill); Dead (user is deceased); and Archived (user is deceased, but some of his content has been captured at or Lysander (talk) 21:55, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Agora/14 November 2015

Where do I see file uploads?

On wikis, I am used to being able to keep tab on files being uploaded via Recent changes. Here I cannot find any overview showing files being uploaded. Where must I look? __meco (talk) 20:06, 14 November 2015 (UTC) --Etenne (talk) 20:10, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Appreciated. Would I have been able to find this page through any of the wiki's pages/menus? __meco (talk) 20:12, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Sort of. Under tools on the side bar, hit upload a file and that takes you to --Etenne (talk) 20:20, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Nah, that's what you get. I get: Permission error - You do not have permission to upload this file, for the following reason: The action you have requested is limited to users in one of the groups: Administrators, uploader. I propose you add this view to somewhere, perhaps the community portal. In any case, you need to provide the link to the files after fulfilling an upload request. __meco (talk) 20:46, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
There's also By the way, why do we bother having an upload link on the sidebar, given that hardly anyone has access to use it? Lysander (talk) 21:30, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Because I find it useful. --Etenne (talk) 21:56, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Lysander, it should go. __meco (talk) 21:58, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your input and I will take it under consideration :) --Etenne (talk) 22:08, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Hmm, there may be some way to make it only show up for authorized uploaders. It could require some custom coding, though, and might interfere with caching (if BoyWiki uses caching). We could warn people off by making it say "Upload file (sysops only)". Lysander (talk) 22:41, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
I have a better idea, I am going to go get drunk and not think about it :)--Etenne (talk) 22:54, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
But this is super mega high priority. Importance: Severe, Urgency: Critical Lysander (talk) 23:07, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
The only thing of super mega high priority for me tonight is choosing the right cigar to go with my brandy. --Etenne (talk) 00:27, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Agora/15 November 2015

So you guys know

I received a directive from the FSCo today saying that links to .zip files are not to be allowed on Free Spirits sites. --Etenne (talk) 17:29, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

OK. This is surely in response to this. __meco (talk) 18:55, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
EXE files are still okay, though, right? There are some self-extracting files I want to post. Thanks. Lysander (talk) 18:57, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
They cannot possibly allow exe files, as zip files can be converted to exe files. __meco (talk) 19:00, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Agora/19 November 2015

BoyWiki for boys?

Has anyone made any efforts to make at least parts of BoyWiki be designed to meet the needs and requirements of actual boys, as in children, and on their terms? __meco (talk) 18:28, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

I am not sure what you have in mind and remember that anything that remotely can be called "grooming" is illegal, esp. in the UK. Keep in mind that we are limited on what we can do under the BL banner.--Etenne (talk) 19:13, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
What about those boys associated with NAMBLA? I mean, aren't there ANY young people in this community/movement? Because if that's the case, then all claims of wanting to represent the boys' side in this becomes kinda moot, as in self-serving wishful thinking… __meco (talk) 19:32, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
BoyWiki is not representative, or the voice of any movement. But I understand what you are saying, but you have to understand that what was possible 30 years ago is not possible today. Do I really need to list the reasons why? --Etenne (talk) 19:42, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Hmmm… I wonder if Lysander would have any creative (or constructive) opinions on this matter. Anyway, I posted this also at BoyChat. __meco (talk) 19:44, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
This reminds me, we should install mediawikiwiki:Extension:Echo so that it'll be possible to ping people. Anyway, ChildWiki was designed to at least give lip service to kids' liberating themselves, although they would need help from adults to do so. There may already be kids editing, or posting to BoyChat, but perhaps they don't proclaim their age to the world, lest people treat them worse for doing so. I know when I was younger, I didn't usually reveal my age online, because I didn't want people acting condescending toward me, or dismissing what I had to say as just the result of a phase I was going through.
What about the Youth Rights Network; they had a lot of teenagers in their movement, some of whom may have been editors of the wiki. See their article on the age of consent. By the way, if you find that some of their content hasn't been archived as of a certain date, you might want to try another date. Lysander (talk) 20:16, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
I like the idea of an integrated portal, and a simple wiki. The only thing is how different would the simple wiki be. I feel some of the more 'explicit' articles shouldn't be put into simple language, as that might cause suspicion/be threatening to this site at the very least. At the very worst, like Etenne said, someone might accuse this site of grooming. Hikari (talk) 22:06, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
And then what would come of that? Lysander (talk) 22:49, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
BoyWiki might be taken down? Hikari (talk) 22:55, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Have there ever been any cases of a website being taken down for such a reason? I'm thinking it would fail the clear and present danger test. As Justice Brandeis put it, "The wide difference between advocacy and incitement, between preparation and attempt, between assembling and conspiracy, must be borne in mind." We have a constitutional right to communicate our views and information to children. We just don't have a right to be a wiki that "knowingly persuades, induces, entices, or coerces any individual who has not attained the age of 18 years, to engage in prostitution or any sexual activity for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense, or attempts to do so". 18 U.S.C. § 2242. I wonder where one exactly draws that line. Lysander (talk) 23:05, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
I appreciate learning about that distinction coming from Justice Brandeis, nevertheless, the considertaion obviously needs to take into account that what this wiki largely deals with is a Phase 1 Topic, which means that constitutional protection doesn't really apply. Anyway, are the serves for this website in the US? I kinda thought it was in Canada. __meco (talk) 16:07, 20 November 2015 (UTC)


This discussion originally started at and has been moved from User:Meco/Sandbox

I know it is trivial but we need to come up with a better name then "Sandbox", something more BL related. Every time I see "Sandbox", I picture a cat going to the bathroom :) --Etenne (talk) 17:34, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Trial and error page? But isn't this standard terminology throughout the wiki world? Also, with our focus on young people, it would seem that sandbox (or sandpit) is a particularly appropriate term… __meco (talk) 18:26, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
I was thinking more along the lines of Palaestra --Etenne (talk) 19:07, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Think practical, usability, findability… __meco (talk) 19:29, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
"Palaestra" implies more than one person is involved; playing in a sandbox can be solitary. However, "sandbox" also has LBL (as opposed to TBL) connotations. Lysander (talk) 20:03, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Agora/23 November 2015

Requested edit to BoyWiki:Agora

Please someone with sufficient editing rights respond to my request at BoyWiki talk:Agora! __meco (talk) 20:01, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

I nominate Meco to be a BoyWiki curator. Lysander (talk) 03:36, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Agora/26 November 2015

Hoopla over using BoyChat material at BoyWiki

A post at BC proposes "a section on BoyWiki listing interesting posts from Boychat", specifying "long and unique posts that could be saved and maybe categorized". Which is a good idea that I have recently also mentioned (here and here). Now, this comes quite unexpectedly to me, but there seems to be some deep-seated resistance towards this, perhaps out of privacy concerns, copyright considerations (as it were) or perhaps even outright hostility and distrust against BoyWiki and its contributors. How should we approach this issue in the most constructive manner? __meco (talk) 16:12, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Address the copyright concerns and then just go ahead and start copying the content over here. I'm not sure whom we need to talk to, to get the copyright concerns addressed, but this has come up at MetaBoyChat before, and maybe it's time to open a new thread there. Etenne, what do you think? Lysander (talk) 16:30, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
I think it is a good idea that will never get off the ground because no one will ever devote the amount of time necessary to see it through. --Etenne (talk) 16:54, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
I cannot believe that. Are people of the community so incredibly lazy and self-obsessed that a sufficient number of people willing to work with this is blatantly unlikely, as you clearly suggest? Or does it hark back to suspicion and disagreement with the way BoyWiki is run? __meco (talk) 17:39, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
I will let you decide that for yourself --Etenne (talk) 18:51, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Can we come up with a statement of consent to republication that will make it possible to repost BoyChat posts here? People would need to consent to have their content reposted everywhere, not just on BoyWiki, for it to be compatible with BoyWiki:Copyrights. I guess I'll get the ball rolling by stating, "Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify all of my BoyChat posts under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts." Lysander (talk) 07:53, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
I am not sure I can answer that as it seems to me to be more a question for the admin staff of BoyChat.--Etenne (talk) 15:08, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
What do you mean the "admin staff"? I see one person with extended permissions editing this wiki: YOU. What is this clandestine cabal of remote personages whom we as active users are apparently supposed to humbly revere and await the edicts of? I'm more than a little flustered by this, coming from the Wikimedia community (and also another wiki) where users discuss what changes could, should and will be made. I mean, it's not like there isn't a framework and higher officials enforcing that framework at those other wikis, but it's certainly not like what seems to be how things are done here where issues being proposed are routinely referred to some unaccountable, anonymous body of controllers. I know I'm pretty new here, but I find this highly suspect. __meco (talk) 16:51, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
The WMF is the same way. When you get ArbCom-banned without a formal ArbCom case being opened, there's no community discussion. In fact, the block comment will say that all discussions should be by the private ArbCom email list. When you get SanFran banned (as you and I were), the matter is not open for community discussion either. Nor was Wikipedia's child protection policy enacted by community discussion; rather, it was imposed by Jimbo, and it's kept in its current form by Alison, who usually declines to discuss the merits of it.
On BoyWiki, usually we only hear of the wiki council's discussions or actions through Etenne. They don't post their email archives, or even the minutes of their discussions, anywhere for us to see. This is what organizations do when they're afraid of the legal consequences of being transparent. Whether this actually works to reduce legal liability is debatable. Lysander (talk) 17:23, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Minutes of the Wiki Council: Etenne is currently fighting against making BoyWiki completely anonymous so users can't see the user names of the other users making edits. I am not making any friends by doing this and I am getting blasted by you and blasted by them... and still I go on, some days more merrily then others..... --Etenne (talk) 18:03, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Here is an excerpt from that discussion,
The second part of my post was a (small) manifestation of my tiredness and bitterness about the total lack of action concerning the personal security of our contributors.
In the beginning, we thought that BoyWiki could have the same rules and ways of functioning as Wikipedia, with everything overt and visible for everybody. We must never forget that in reality, we are hunted pariahs, treated as the worst criminals; that our fates and lives are in constant danger; and that the security of each of us can depend on an infuriated anti, a vicious traitor, a madman in crisis, or an obstinate investigator.
That's why we need to be as cautious and invisible as members of a resistance movement during a war. Tracing what one of us does and writes must be impossible.
It seems that the only way to fulfill this is to make all "signatures" in BoyWiki invisible—except for the administrators, naturally. (If there is another way, it can be discussed—but I doubt it.)
Any venue that attempts to foist anonymity upon me has seen the last of me. And please note, Etenne, my frustration is not, and has not (I believe) been directed at you. I very much appreciate your dedication. __meco (talk) 18:10, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Re. the "Minutes of the Wiki Council". In my opinion it is shocking and condemnable that (or "if", a slight proviso taking into account my newness and would-be lack of oversight) that this is being discussed unbeknownst to the community of contributors. Is there an utter lack of adherence to the consensus principle at play here? Is there an elite here that asserts ownership and dictatorial privileges with regards to the function and development of BoyWiki? __meco (talk) 18:25, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Meco, yes, it appears there's an elite here that asserts ownership and dictatorial privileges with regards to the function and development of BoyWiki. Most wikis (including RationalWiki, Dramatica, etc.) are like that. Lysander (talk) 18:27, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Etenne, I certainly don't blame you for decisions that are outside your control, and if you're fighting the good fight against what sounds like a stupid proposal, then I thank you. Even if we got rid of user names like "Meco," "Lysander," etc. we would still need to identify ourselves in some way (e.g. User1, User2, etc.) in order for the community to function as a community. I see that one of our users already chose to take part in such a naming scheme.
Thank you for staying active on BoyWiki during circumstances that might would have discouraged me to the point I would have quitted. Most notably, there have been periods when it seemed like you were the only editor, yet you soldiered on. Lysander (talk) 18:27, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Re. the text in red. I understand the argument and the need felt by many to be able to contribute anonymously. What I don't understand is how this isn't sufficiently provided for by the default wiki setup, even barred allowing anonymous contributions. Can someone please explain why they find that the way this wiki currently operates provides them insufficient security? __meco (talk) 19:22, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
This does not seem to be sufficient as an approach to this issue. As I have argued, other, antagonistic parties are going to harvest stuff from any pedo-related forum or website with utter disregard for intellectual property or privacy rights. I would think it even more important that we focuse on protecting people at BoyChat who do not want the additional exposure of being referred to prominently (or not so prominently) in a BoyWiki article. There would be several ways of effecting such protection (but such measures should be effected usually only upon concrete demand to do so). For one, we could make additional efforts to anonymize a text (quote) from BoyChat, not naming who posted it, not linking to the BC post. Also, we could use paraphrasing rather than exact quoting when requested to do so. These options could be announced at BoyChat along with their rules for posting.
We here at BoyWiki should devise guidelines for referencing and quoting BoyChat. One point of these guidelines should require that whenever material from BC was added to or referenced at a BoyWiki page (whether that be an article or a discussion), the BoyChat poster and BoyChat thread in question should be notified. And there would likely be different considerations depending on whether the reference was in an article or in a discussion. Notification to users could possibly be made privately with the cooperation of the BoyChat cogs, I suppose. If this isn't possible we could simply post the notification as a BoyChat post using a standard header such as "Notification of BoyWiki reuse", possibly even including the name of the user being notified in the title. The downside to this is that it would be very ostentatious (and some would perhaps even consider it clutter). And this notification post, or one delivered privately, would then include the standard conditions, routines and how to request added level of anonymity along the lines with which I started this comment. __meco (talk) 20:39, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Do as you wish. In the meantime, I will continue feeling free to quote short passages from BoyChat posts pursuant to fair use doctrine. Lysander (talk) 21:48, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
And here is another thread over at BC started by Hikari that includes discussion on this topic. __meco (talk) 18:03, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Do we already have an article on this (gender bias issue)

When I read this post at BC I figured it would be a very valuable thing to collate such stories from from both the male and female adult side and compare the reactions. We could start out by simply collecting the evidence and then as the material increased we could give it some analysis. Also, I'm sure there must exist some analyses of this complex already, and that should also going into this article as soon as it got dug up. The stark opposite to that woman/boy story would be this, I presume. A focus of the article would have to, in my opinion, also be homophobia and androphobia/misandry. __meco (talk) 17:36, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Hikari/notes ____meco (talk) 14:06, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi Meco. Please use the notes as you wish :) Also, the doctor who was harassed is a female. Have you also seen this new article? You could use it to compare and contrast. It raises the question, do other countries have more of a gender bias than others? User:Hikari(talk) 16:46, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
That is one of the things we might just find out after we started to collate this material. __meco (talk) 17:53, 28 November 2015 (UTC)BoyWiki:Agora/27 November 2015

View edit history

Hello, is there a way to see a user's individual edit history? That is, all the pages they have created or made edits to? User:Hikari(talk) 05:36, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Sure, just go to their user page, then the item 'User contributions' will appear in the left column, at the bottom in the Tools panel. __meco (talk) 20:16, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Agora/2 December 2015

Video is coming

With a little luck, BoyWiki should have the capacity to to do videos sometime this week. We will be limited to webm format only. --Etenne (talk) 21:42, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Agora/3 December 2015

What the fuck?

This and this is totally unacceptable to me. This is kindergarten-level censorship, an I find in intolerable. __meco (talk) 12:09, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

  • Users should refrain from getting too detailed in any discussions of a sexual nature. Wording should be chosen carefully when issues of sexuality arise.
  • When in doubt of the graphic nature of what you want to say, use clinical terminology, sexually uncharged phrases, or euphemisms, and refrain from being descriptive.
  • Sigpics also have the potential to be considered erotica. Therefore, overly erotic sigpics or sigpics that depict genitalia or any sexual act, photographically or otherwise, will not be registered.
  • Posts written as erotica will be deleted. Overly sexual details included without thought will be edited, and when necessary, overly sexual discussions will be deleted.
  • Repeat offenders will be warned and may be subject to banning.

These are the rules that have allowed Free Spirits to continue to operate for the last 20 years. --Etenne (talk) 12:45, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
Well, those aren't MY words, they are quoted from a work of art, the whole idea being to convey a deeper insight that couldn't possibly be achieved in clinical terminology. And besides, I've raised the issue here at Agora very recently about how this wiki presents itself, and to whom. It seems that the young people involved in this whole scene is far from being part of the target audience, let alone considered subjects whose possible inputs and interests would be considered. Instead, this seems to be destined entirely to be a boring website for adults, preferrably ones with a proclivity for higher academia.
Hey, why don't we change the name of this wiki from BoyWiki to BoyLover's wiki and be very honest about totally not representing any boys involved in all of this. __meco (talk) 20:16, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
ChildWiki is specifically geared towards being a place for the most controversial content, so you did well by putting it there. Lysander (talk) 22:48, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Agora/5 December 2015

BoyWiki was upgraded to MediaWiki 1.26.0 today. Please let me know if you encounter any problems

The tech person is still doing some adjustments and the Video is not working right yet. Let me know what you think... if you like it, hate it, or are indifferent. Etenne (talk) 03:36, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Agora/21 December 2015

Policy discussion

To All en.boywiki users. I would like to get feedback on what you consider a reasonable time period for articles that are not being worked on to remain in the draft category and cleanup category before being purposed for deletion? As well as how long they should be kept in Category:Articles proposed for deletion? --Etenne (talk) 16:01, 21 December 2015 (UTC)