From BoyWiki


Hi Etenne, I wonder if there's any reason not to migrate BoyWiki's content over to Wikibooks? Perhaps a "Boylove" book could be created, with the content arranged hierarchically in subpages. I recently created a bunch of suicide-related subpages under wikibooks:Suicide#Methods, and the objections to the content were overruled, in contrast to how the situation was handled over at Wikiversity (see wikiversity:Talk:Suicide). I'm going to ask around and see what the reception would likely be. Thanks, Leucosticte (talk) 01:38, 25 October 2014 (CEST)

I don't have any problems whith the content being added to wikibooks however I would not want you to do all that work for something that just gets deleted.--Etenne (talk) 13:55, 25 October 2014 (CEST)
I think what I'll do instead is narrow my focus to child pornography. I'll work on the book in userspace here, and then copy and paste it over to Wikibooks when it's in decent shape. Leucosticte (talk) 23:41, 28 October 2014 (CET)


It seems like NewgonWiki's becoming an archive created kind of a hole in wiki coverage, in that there's nothing in the wikisphere covering intergenerational relationships with adolescent girls, which is ironic since that may be the group of minors to which the largest number of adults feel a romantic or sexual attraction.. I suppose that in retrospect, I should've called ChildWiki "YouthWiki" or something, so that it would cover adolescents as well as children. "Boy" is a term that covers pretty much any male from 0-17 (and even beyond, sometimes; people speak of "college boys" and, although I'm 34, my ex called me a "white boy"). "Child" usually refers to prepubescents; adolescents would probably dislike being called "children" and people who have relationships with them would probably not regard it as "adult-child sex". There could be "adult-youth" sex, I guess. Leucosticte (talk) 21:24, 7 November 2014 (CET)

I suppose you could always add other Wikis to Childwiki in the same way you would add a different language wiki and sort of have a Childlove hub:) Or are you thinking about renaming it to something more encompassing? BTW, your server runs kind of slow. Also can it be accessed using https?--Etenne (talk) 21:46, 7 November 2014 (CET)
Yeah, I use DreamHost, and even though I have a VPS, object caching isn't available. I don't have https; I guess I'd need to buy an IP address for that. I could probably get a better hosting solution from some other company; I just use DreamHost to avoid censorship.
I could name it something more encompassing but the problem with "YouthWiki" is that people might assume that excludes prepubescents, since the youth rights movement typically has only focused on adolescents. Leucosticte (talk) 22:39, 7 November 2014 (CET)
I don't have any ideas for names off the top of my head right now but perhaps you could make a post to GirlChat and they could come up with something. (as well as perhaps attract some users:) --Etenne (talk) 14:15, 8 November 2014 (CET)
I notice that efforts to create and sustain a reasonably large, active GirlWiki failed miserably. The BLs are putting the GLs to shame, as usual. :) 1,000+ articles is pretty good for a non-WMF wiki. Leucosticte (talk) 19:48, 8 November 2014 (CET)
Thanks for the compliments but I feel we can do better:) Plus many of those pages are related to the calender template and chronology. However, I am not dissatisfied with the progress we have been making. I would guess that the difference comes from Boylove having a longer history than girllove in that up until quite recently, girllove was perhaps considered a normal variant of heterosexuality whereas pederasty has almost always been considered as exotic.--Etenne (talk) 21:05, 8 November 2014 (CET)


Hey Etenne, I gotta find a new server, I think. I currently have a DreamHost VPS, and not only is it slow, but it doesn't even load sometimes because it runs out of memory. (Memory costs 5 cents/month per megabyte; right now I'm paying $15/month for 300MB.) Problem is, I got kicked off of HostMonster because someone filed a report of "adult content" (because of text, not pictures). Know any good free speech webhosts? I tried NearlyFreeSpeech.NET, but there a number of technical problems associated with that host (including the fact that PHP has to be run in safe mode). Thanks, Leucosticte (talk) 01:28, 12 November 2014 (CET)

I will look into it. Email me @
I increased the amount of memory a bit, so it's working somewhat better now. Still crashes pretty much daily, but then restarts. Leucosticte (talk) 21:20, 21 November 2014 (CET)


WikiIndex deleted the articles on BoyWiki, ChildWiki, Newgon Wiki, and, among other wikis. See . It seems to me that most wikis that don't have a strong, benevolent dictator end up going down the path WikiIndex is going. They start out being tolerant and inclusive, and then a new cadre of sysops comes into power, after the old guard has left, and sweeps away the users and content that are considered undesirable. One of the sysops there, Hoof Hearted, who had for a long time been the most active user on the wiki, had defended me and my content in the past, but I think his health has been suffering or he's otherwise been less active than before. He hasn't edited in months.

Anyway, it's sad to see them abandoning neutrality on these controversial topics, especially due to pressure from RationalWiki. Leucosticte (talk) 19:18, 21 November 2014 (CET)

Not surprising. Even if they wanted to be more open, it's easy to give in to the pressure since they really don't have a horse in this race. It is easy to turn your head and not see what is right before your eyes.... at least until General Patton comes along and makes you take a walk through the death camps and bury the bodies  :) --Etenne (talk) 23:40, 22 November 2014 (CET)
So, those who don't have a horse in the race don't care, and therefore give in to whatever side makes the most fuss or threatens to make them look bad; and those who do have a horse in the race are considered disqualified from voicing their opinion because they're a bunch of dirty pedophiles with a conflict of interest in the matter. On the other hand, if those who make their living prosecuting child porn offenses, providing government- and defendant-funded treatment to the "victims", and so on, voice their opinions, it's assumed that their motives are pure. Nice. Leucosticte (talk) 01:00, 23 November 2014 (CET)
Someone recently wrote, "Sites that discuss the normalization of child porn and pedophilia are fine in a neutral context, but they tilt heavily in the interest of illegal acts when they start arguing for it, and since I don't believe it is ethically or legally sensible to provide links to sites that argue for the incitement of criminal acts minus any caveats about exercising legal restraint, and having seen BoyWiki and Newgon Wiki, they are only concerned with help pedophiles hide themselves from the law, which is why I would oppose them without question." Leucosticte (talk) 18:51, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Someone should inform this guy that simply existing and being a pedophile is not against any law. Of course, I would like to challenge this person as to exactly which entry/entries it is talking about since I do not see anything on BoyWiki beyond basic internet security which is a good idea for everyone. I suppose that as long as no one fact-checks his lies that he is good. --Etenne (talk) 12:01, 7 January 2015 (UTC)


I got this message on Quora today:


You are being blocked for one month because your questions, in aggregate, are creating a hostile pattern of content that many users are reporting as harassing and hostile to certain groups of people.

These are the type of questions which are considered problematic:
- Does the illegal possession and distribution of child pornography encourage people to abuse children so they can create porn for others' use?
- If you're an adult, is it illegal to, via the Internet, ask a minor you met online to meet you somewhere, if you don't make any suggestions or proposals of a sexual nature?

Quora is very committed to ensuring it is a safe and welcoming place for all good contributors and we require that users are judicious when asking questions that could be perceived as sexist, racist or harmful to minors.

Quora Admin

I was a bit disappointed, since Quora seemed like one of the few mainstream online communities in which it was still safe to ask edgy questions. It seems like feminists don't really want a debate; they want to shut down the opposing side of the debate. We have places like BoyWiki we can go to, but then people de-list those sites from indexes like WikiIndex to make it harder to find.

I don't see admins of sites like Quora being "very committed to ensuring it is a safe and welcoming place" for dissidents. I wonder why people don't see it as dangerous in any way to suppress minority viewpoints. They focus on the dangers of allowing those views to be heard. Leucosticte (talk) 23:19, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Do you think that continuing to have a page about them on BoyWiki is desirable given the circumstances? --Etenne (talk) 13:30, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
As criticism, maybe. Kinda like how Evil-Unveiled had pages about BoyWiki and its users, for purposes of criticism. Leucosticte (talk) 21:01, 16 December 2014 (UTC)


Someone writes, "I just finished a book about a young teen growing up in South Africa. He goes to a boarding school where he gets in a relationship with one of the teachers. A key is found that the teacher gave the boy. At first the boy lies to protect the teacher but when the story falls apart the boy ends up telling the truth -- not everything, but enough. The boy continues to defend the teacher, even saying it was his fault the relationship got started. The interrogator then switches and even gets angry that the boy does not see himself as the victim. In the end the boy gives in and repeats that he was abused. It struck me that once the boy relented and became the 'victim' he gave his empowerment away not to the teacher but the interrogator. The teacher actually empowered the boy by letting him choose how the relationship progressed but the interrogator took that empowerment away and used the empowerment for himself to take control of the boy and the teacher."

It kinda reminds me of the new ad campaign that's been on TV asking for donations to teach young people that they should tell on any adult who engages in sexual touching with them. This training is said to produce strong, empowered youth. Leucosticte (talk) 00:30, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Leucosticte's e-mail

If you have it, I'd like to get in touch with him. Please don't put it here - I don't think it should be made public without his permission - you could e-mail it to me, if you have it, OK? Thanks. user4

Where to put links to other sites that have good information?

Do we have a general "links" page, to put links to good sites? If so, where?

For example, this is a good page: and this, too:

User4 (talk) 06:43, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Boylinks maybe ? I don't know. Links mainly correspond to an entry however maybe if you take a look at Wikipedia and see if they have something comparable, we could figure out a format for doing that. --Etenne (talk) 08:55, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Newly added articles

When people come to the site, we can use the (very frustrating) technique that supermarkets often use - they move things around, or introduce new items, which then forces the customers to search the whole place to find things. This makes the customers buy more products, even though it makes the customers very unhappy sometimes.

Or, we could make it easy for returning visitors -- those who have already seen much of the material on the site. We could have a category of "newly added articles". Then visitors would not have to dig through everything on the site in order to find the new articles - something which may frustrate them, and even cause them to stop visiting the site.

Sure - we have the "recent changes" category, but that is confusing, and difficult to peruse.

How about a page which lists only new articles, perhaps by date of creation (most-recent first)? I'll bet our visitors would really appreciate that!

What do you think? Should we make it very difficult for returning visitors to read our new articles, or make should we make it easy for them?

User4 (talk) 19:31, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

You mean something like Special:NewPages? Leucosticte (talk) 08:37, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Brilliant! Yes! Thank you so much! Now, if only we had the same thing for links viewed in the past 30 days... And the order inverted, by number of views... ;-) User4 (talk) 12:47, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

A "Newly Added Pages" link on the main page

would be useful for visitors, especially returning ones, wouldn't it? User4 (talk) 12:54, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Already there See: From BoyWiki's new and recently improved articles:
Template:Did you know Leucosticte (talk) 20:54, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Hmm... perhaps the text "From BoyWiki's new and recently improved articles:" should be amended to "From BoyWiki's new and recently improved articles :(click link to see more) as I sure missed it, and I'm pretty sure others have, too. User4 (talk) 05:18, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

A "Newly Added or Improved Pages" link...

... would be nice in the "navigation panel," as the current Recent changes link is more appropriate for editors than for casual readers, don't you think? User4 (talk) 05:10, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

(diff | hist) (diff | hist | edit)

(diff | hist | edit) in Recent Changeswould be nice. It would then not require that the page be loaded first, and "edit" chosen. It would save bandwidth for BW, too. Maybe make this appear only for logged-on users? Is it possible? User4 (talk) 06:23, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Some changes are going to be added to that page during the next upgrade but what you are asking would require a rewrite of the wiki software itself and I doubt any of our tech. people would be willing to do that.--Etenne (talk) 09:37, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Feel free to add it as a task over at Phabricator. Leucosticte (talk) 10:40, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Do we have a template that gives the option of searching further when a category exists for a certain term?

NOTE: I FOUND A HACK - SEE THE END OF THIS ENTRY. I added Books, and I now see that this forces a search for the term "books" to jump directly to that category, rather than (as before) providing search results for the term among all the articles. User4 (talk) 05:39, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

No, I am not sure how you would go about doing that. --Etenne (talk) 05:43, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
I bet Leucosticte knows how. User4 (talk) 05:48, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
I note that a search for the term "literature" has the same problem. No option in given for viewing the category, or searching among all entries. User4 (talk) 05:48, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia example: states the page exists, but gives the search results in addition.

The answer would seem to be here in the wikicode for the returns of that search. The template must be in there. Maybe it is obvious to you. Not to me!:

<div class="results-info">Results <strong>1 - 20</strong> of <strong>1,977</strong></div> <div style="clear:both"></div></div><div class="mw-search-profile-tabs"><div class="search-types"><ul><li class="current"><a href="/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&search=boozing&fulltext=Search&profile=default" title="Search in (Article)">Content pages</a></li><li class="normal"><a href="/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&search=boozing&fulltext=Search&profile=images" title="Search for files">Multimedia</a></li><li class="normal"><a href="/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&search=boozing&fulltext=Search&profile=all" title="Search all of content (including talk pages)">Everything</a></li><li class="normal"><a href="/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&search=boozing&fulltext=Search&profile=advanced" title="Search in custom namespaces">Advanced</a></li></ul></div><div style="clear:both"></div></div></form>

MAYBE IN THE FOLLOWING <div class='searchresults'><p class="mw-search-exists"> <b>There is a page named "<a href="/wiki/Boozing" title="Boozing" class="mw-redirect">Boozing</a>" on Wikipedia</b></p> <ul class='mw-search-results'> <li><div class='mw-search-result-heading'> <a href="/wiki/Alcoholic_beverage" title="Alcoholic beverage">Alcoholic beverage</a> <span class='searchalttitle'>(redirect from <a href="/wiki/Boozing" title="Boozing"><span class="searchmatch">Boozing</span></a>)</span> </div> <div class='searchresult'>An alcoholic beverage is a drink which contains a substantial amount of the psychoactive drug ethanol (informally called alcohol). As one of the most widely</div> <div class='mw-search-result-data'>25 KB (3,130 words) - 23:12, 23 February 2015</div></li> <li><div class='mw-search-result-heading'><a href="/wiki/Booze" title="Booze"><span>

Wikipedia has this page:
Maybe the relevant section is:
A "double soft search redirect" could probably be easily hacked to do what I am suggesting ::
Here is some code on redirects:

<div id="mw-content-text" lang="en" dir="ltr" class="mw-content-ltr"><dl> <dd><i>"Demonized" redirects here. For the album, see <a href="/wiki/Demonized_(album)" title="Demonized (album)">Demonized (album)</a>.</i></dd> </dl>

This could "do the trick", couldn't it?

User4 (talk) 06:48, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I found a hack for the problem. It works for other search terms, too.

Just place a question mark before the search term. User4 (talk) 07:11, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia's category:Pederastic films has a few we don't have. And perhaps their articles are superior to ours for the ones we do have (I don't have time to check them all)? User4 (talk) 05:53, 28 February 2015 (UTC)


Hi Etenne, I recommend doing an Special:Import of this file, which contains a few dozen revisions from ChildWiki pages User4 wanted to bring over. For more info on this process, see mediawikiwiki:Manual:Importing XML dumps. Thanks. Leucosticte (talk) 05:51, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

I would rather my edits were on CW. User4 (talk) 04:22, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Problem with an incorrect "talk page",_1994%29

... belongs to the Chicken Hawk film page. Or, at least, it should. User4 (talk) 04:20, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

New Russian law against "promoting pedophilia"

I believe that most BoyWiki content is now illegal in Russia, as it promotes pedophilia (or pederasty). Therefore, most of BW content should be removed, in order not to violate Russian law. User4 (talk) 17:29, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

do you really want to do this? On a side note, it is not an issue because this site is already blocked in Russia by the Russian government. --Etenne (talk) 17:33, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Of course not. I'm just making a point. (I don't have time now for a long response.) This kind of "politically correct" (literally) thinking is what has led to so many injustices in the world today, including the pogram against BLs. (Sorry - gotta run - be back later.) User4 (talk) 17:47, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Special category "All pages" still screwed up

I moved the Homeland Security page to remove the quote at the beginning, but the [Special:AllPages] index is still screwed up (or is there a time lag for it to take effect?) User4 (talk) 23:00, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Two reasons that I can think of,
1. I think that Special category "All pages" may also include all the redirect pages so what you are seeing maybe the redirect.
2. The way the page is cached in your browser may not update even if you are using ctrl R until you close and restart your browser. --Etenne (talk) 23:11, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
What do YOU see when you load the page? It shouldn't be in your cache. User4 (talk) 23:46, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
I could only find the New page without the "'s but I can see that the redirect for Alexander's Choice with the "'s is on the list. --Etenne (talk) 00:37, 3 March 2015 (UTC)


Does the protection of File talk:Warren Cup Scene B 20thCentury london British Museum.jpg need to be indefinite? Someone might come along later and want to bring up some topic related to the image that has nothing to do with the previous discussion. Leucosticte (talk) 17:16, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I think so. That is the only option on the protection drop-down list and doesn't seem to want to let me set a time. I will unprotect it latter :) --Etenne (talk) 17:24, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
That's odd. MediaWiki:protect-expiry-options should be giving you a bunch of different options. Leucosticte (talk) 18:30, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Well, it doesn't matter because we are going to be completely redoing the wiki software soon and adding additional security features ...but don't tell anybody;) --Etenne (talk) 18:44, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
I wonder if it would be useful to install mediawikiwiki:Extension:Scribunto? Then we could import the latest templates from Wikipedia. Admittedly, I don't have a particular use case in mind. Leucosticte (talk) 20:19, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Risk to editors

Is there anyone among the crazies who has the time to research/harass/pursue editors on the basis of their IPs? Am I crazy not to be using a proxy? Or is the damage already done? Or is this paranoia? thanks. Linguist (talk) 11:27, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Well we have it set up so the BoyWiki software itself does not record your IP # however taking extra security precautions is always a good idea. I really don't know what the likelihood is that anyone could track you simply based on your IP#.... I so far no one has had any problems with this but that does not mean that it is completely impossible. My experience has been though that the most frequent way people get tracked is by posting too much personal information about themselves. --Etenne (talk) 11:49, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
In response to your question, "Is there anyone among the crazies who has the time to research/harass/pursue editors on the basis of their IPs?", the answer is: In the past there have been crazy people on BoyLove sites collecting personal information about posters -- BoyChat has always been the "happy hunting ground" for antis collecting information in order to identify and "out" posters. We all should assume the same thing happens at BoyWiki, too.
Regarding IP addresses: Everyone should always assume that the Free Spirit servers have been compromised (it would be so easy for the FBI to do that). When you read about what the FBI has done in the past with other organizations, it is highly likely that they have done the exact same thing at BoyChat and BoyWiki. That is, they have planted "moles" (spies) as posters, and they have already compromised the computer system.
As for your question, "Or is the damage already done?", well, that depends on where you live (don't tell me!) and if your identity here has been linked with your identity on other sites where you have given personally identifiable information. If that is the case, then - yes - "the damage has been done". The most important thing is that you do not currently have any pictures of any kind containing children saved to your hard drive, and -- if you have had them in the past, but deleted them (especially if you use Windows) -- you should throw away your hard drive, get a new one, and start over. You should assume that your IP address has already been given to the legal authorities where you live, and that you are now on their "watch list" (they may try to make friends with you, and try to get you to share illegal materials).
You should use Truecrypt to create a secret volume on your hard drive, and use that partition for any BoyLove-related things. Google "download truecrypt" for more information. It is a little complicated to do everything right, but it is worth the effort. Losing a day or two now is better than losing years later...
You should use the Tor browser bundle (google for it) for any connections to the Internet that have anything to do with boys, BoyLove, etc. It is not perfect (it makes browsing more difficult), but it worth the bother.User4 (talk) 18:36, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
You should see also the Tor browser bundle, the Proxy_and_VPN, and the THE WAR AGAINST "CHILD MOLESTERS" articles. User4 (talk) 06:35, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

BW's Wish list

Where is BW's "wish list"? I would like to add:

  • a request for the ability to choose to see "Recent changes" with only the articles and talk pages that I have not already responded to -- in other words, excluding the stuff I've already dealt with. User4 (talk) 18:07, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Well I think that is going to be a moot point because with the new purposed security features, no one but the curators will be able to see who is posting what. It don't exactly know how this is going to work and there is no use debating it with me because they Wiki council has already made up it's mind to do this. --Etenne (talk) 18:19, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
I wonder what effect that will have on collaboration? That seems like a disturbing loss of transparency. Also, is that compatible with the GFDL? Leucosticte (talk) 18:26, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
  • [NEW REQUEST]I also would like to suggest that on "Special:All pages" that the date listings be broken out of the listing and put in a separate list. They are very distracting, and not useful for most people. User4 (talk) 20:27, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
your guess is as good as mine... like I said, I don't know how it is going to work... so I am taking a wait and see attitude. --Etenne (talk) 18:30, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Uh, sorry -- off topic -- but we need to discuss something off-site. Can you please open a e-mail account, and then send me an e-mail from that account to my e-mail address that you already have? Thanks. User4 (talk) 18:43, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
HELLO ETENNE - WE NEED TO TALK - OFFSITE. User4 (talk) 19:53, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

BTW - I have started a Wish list‎ here. User4 (talk) 06:25, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

You can email me at my BoyWiki addy, I don't really use any other address but that one. I believe that I understand what your concern might be over one of our techs reading what you send and all I can say is that it is secure. --Etenne (talk) 19:59, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia's article on Pedophilia

I have looked at dozens of earlier (and often quite different) versions of Wikipedia's article on Pedophilia edited over the past 15 years or so, and I also have a complete copy of all the "talk" pages discussing the article and its contents.

A huge edit war went on in the past, which now seems to have subsided. The article is apparently in accords with Wikipedia's neutrality standards, and no longer even carries the disclaimer that "The neutrality of this article is disputed". It seems that certain factions have gained control over the matter of doubts and conflicting opinions, and certain editors (perhaps wrongly?) have now been excluded from voicing their opinions.

It seems to me that the article does not take a neutral POV, and that this should be discussed in an article on BW. Someone could take the Wikipedia article and "annotate" it with concerns regarding the (apparent) nonfactual nature of many claims made in the article, and other concerns regarding the "neutrality" of the article, though our opinions would almost certainly be considered by Wikipedians to "not be neutral". Of course, we don't want to start a big edit war here at BW, either! That would be a big mess! User4 (talk) 06:23, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Newgon Wiki has some articles about the goings-on at Wikipedia, including censorship and various users who contributed to the current state of affairs. Admittedly, it's a bit outdated, but certain events had a lasting effect. Leucosticte (talk) 12:11, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I have seen them -- In fact, I have the Newgon site downloaded to my local disk, so it is easy to peruse them. User4 (talk) 20:04, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Well my preference would be to write it as an historical entry, with and introduction on the matter, what were the issues, significant players, outcome, and using the talk comments as examples. --Etenne (talk) 12:27, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Great idea! Now, who can do it? I'll be happy to upload the relevant Wikipedia talk pages -- they are GNU licensed (or whatever it is) so it is perfectly legal to host them (to have digital copies of them) on the BW site. (It only violates copyright to host a copyrighted file without permission -- that is, to have the file actually located on your site/server -- but links to files on other sites are perfectly legal. A link is just a link -- it is NOT "hosting the file on your site/server". Right?) User4 (talk) 20:04, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Newgon Wiki

This subject was brought up earlier, but here it is again. What do you think of importing the mainspace of Newgon Wiki? I would recommend not importing templates, since that would likely mess up our templates. But the mainspace has a lot of useful stuff. Since Newgon Wiki became an archive, the way for it to remain a living document is to import it to someplace like BoyWiki, so that the improvement of articles can continue.

I would also recommend the uploading of Newgon Wiki's files (since there are issues of Uncommon Sense, and pamphlets, etc. in there), but that's another matter. Leucosticte (talk) 20:20, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Stupid question...

Why does BW have to be part of FS? Couldn't it be hosted elsewhere? Is hosting so difficult to find? This may be a stupid question, but I am asking it seriously.

ChildWiki proved that it could be hosted elsewhere easily enough. But you saw how that went. Leucosticte (talk) 23:30, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
"How it went" is that without a specific effort to locate and invite interested, motivated people to participate, then no-one will become new editors. It's a public relations problem. And then there's the fact that the pool of qualified people available to be drawn upon is quite small.
You can build a better mousetrap, but the world is not going to beat a path to your door until they know about it, and want one of them. Motivation is the key. People act out of self interest, which must be carefully fostered. In other words, you gotta make them hungry for the carrots you dangle in front of them, no matter how truly illusory the carrots really are. Anyway, I just had a big (though late) lunch, and I'm going to take a nap for awhile. C'ya... User4 (talk) 00:10, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Oh, well you would've been welcome to help with public relations.. Leucosticte (talk) 02:40, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
I would have been happy to do so, but I was off the Internet for quite a while, and wasn't aware of what was going on with CW. My bad. User4 (talk) 06:51, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
We can always bring it back, but I wonder what our constituency would be. ASFAR disbanded and there hasn't been a successor organization, so my guess is that hardly anyone cares enough about child liberation that they would be interested in getting organized or writing much about it. The other hurdle is even if people do care about child liberation, not all of those people are necessarily cool with childlove. See also User:Leucosticte/Potential allies. The question of whom we would reach out to as potential supporters is one I never really figured out an answer to. Leucosticte (talk) 15:49, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes and no, I mean if the BoyWiki council wanted to leave Free Spirits (which they do not), we would certainly be free to do so. However since BoyWiki doesn't generate significant donations, we would not be financially able to do that. I am sure there would also be other considerations as well. I mean we are BL's after all and it seems to be in our nature to debate the pros and cons of any issue ad infinitum:) --Etenne (talk) 11:27, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
There are German and Dutch pedo sites that are up (BTW, that Brongersma's wiki I just posted an article about has a contact e-mail addy listed - you could e-mail them and ask for rights to share their stuff on BW). I don't know if they own their own servers or not. And - you'll love this(?) -- European copyright law is nowhere near as stringent as U.S. copyright law! "Fair use" in many countries includes the not-for-profit sharing of copyrighted works. See, it's about selling the stuff, not about sharing the stuff for free. User4 (talk) 11:37, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Well it all still comes down to euros, collectively we are able to do what individually we can not. Even though it is somewhat like putting all your eggs in one basket, many people, myself included, are committed to putting FS back on the right path. --Etenne (talk) 11:53, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Hmm... "putting FS back on the right path"... Well, you've got your work cut out for you. I, personally, think that FS is now corrupted -- (possibly) by The Man, and definitely by the VirPeds. Looking back at older articles, the VirPeds were very active here, too. So, how about The Man? Is he at work here too? (I really wish we could talk off site.) User4 (talk) 12:01, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
This is as much as I can tell you, the old FSC is dead and had been replaced with the FSCo and only one of the former members of the FSC consults occasionally. The one that I think you worry too much about only takes care of his own little world on our old server which BoyWiki hasn't been on since April. The old server couldn't handle BoyWiki which is a bit CPU intensive. That is why when the chat boards went down for 3 days last month, it did not effect BoyWiki --Etenne (talk) 12:14, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Also, you have a somewhat distorted idea of who and how things run at Free Spirits. BoyChat is not Free Spirits... like BoyWiki, it is simply one of the sites they host and completely separate (including email) from BoyWiki. Each Free spirits resource is run independently by their own admins. So for example, the BoyWiki staff don't have access to the administration part BoyChat or any or the other FS sites other then the their own resource. As I said, we are not even on the same server. I seriously doubt that many of the members of the FSCo (esp the non-English speaking members) have ever even heard of VirPed. --Etenne (talk) 13:06, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Case sensitivity in article titles

The wiki software is apparently case-sensitive when it parses article names. I notice that we use two different styles, ie: "TITLENAME (film)" vs "TITLENAME (Book)". This kind of inconsistency makes creating links difficult, and leads to a number of links offering to "create a new article" when the article already exists, but with differing capitalization in the article name. And it seems unreasonable to me to require that editors remember which style of capitalization is used for which kind of article. What do you think? User4 (talk) 07:11, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. I think the right way is for them to all be lower case. I will have to go back and reread about naming articles on Wikipedia. Perhaps I will work on that tomorrow --Etenne (talk) 07:34, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree that they should be lowercase. Redirects are cheap, though. Leucosticte (talk) 15:52, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

.XML dump of BW

I assume that you do .XML dumps periodically for security/backup purposes. If I had one of them, it would be very easy to search for and find errors. Then the errors could be made as a list of "items needing attention", and someone could go through and fix them at their leisure... in the decades to come. User4 (talk) 12:08, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

You can also do your own XML dumps. See mediawikiwiki:User:Leucosticte/Doing the Newgon stuff. (I guess I should've named it something like "Getting data from Newgon Wiki and BoyWiki") Leucosticte (talk) 13:16, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. I now have all the BW articles (with all revisions -- 96 megabytes! [but there was an enigmatic error message at the end -- "can't handle xms style sheets" or something along those lines, maybe -- I don't want to load the file into a reader again - it screws up my RAM and stops me from doing anything else while it loads]) and also the "only current" articles (around 6MB. Oh, and there seems to be a glitch in the BW software regarding the "Add pages from category:" option. It doesn't seem to work -- could you give it a try? User4 (talk) 11:24, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Wiki council

Does the wiki council consist of people who have experience editing wikis and understand how they work? My concern is that some of the efforts to ensure the security and safety of users could go too far in the direction of eliminating the transparency needed for collaboration. Openness is pretty much the lifeblood of wikis; users have to be able to review one another's work, revert bad changes, and participate in holding them accountable. If a hierarchy is set up that only permits a small group of privileged users to see what is going on and/or act on it, then as soon as the members of that small group become less active in doing their jobs, the wiki begins to either stagnate or decay. Leucosticte (talk) 16:03, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Username change

Hi Etenne, Can I please have my username changed to Lysander? Thanks, Leucosticte (talk) 19:27, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Apparently no, when I try I get, "The user "‎Leucosticte" does not exist." message --Etenne (talk) 19:38, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Really. I wonder if it would recognize any other users. Leucosticte (talk) 19:47, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
OK, I got it to work..maybe it was becaused you were logged in at the time...I don't know.--Etenne (talk) 19:55, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Moving user names

I notice that you moved a user name to "dead". May I ask the reason for that? I would have liked to see that user's contributions. That user experienced some extraordinary things. Is that the reason for the move? User4 (talk) 06:59, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

No I was just testing that function because I was having trouble changing someones nick {see the above section}. I am pretty sure I changed it back to what it was originally. --Etenne (talk) 10:37, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
Do you think that what happened to him would be good as "a warning" to BLs about certain dangers they may be subject to by IRL encounters? Would his story be a problem to publish on BW? (Assuming you know what happened to him...) User4 (talk) 11:03, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
I know bits and pieces of what happened to Ghostwriter> And no, if you wanted to write something up, I have no problem with that. --Etenne (talk) 11:08, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
I extensively researched all BC posts relevant to his truly tragic story. It could serve as a good warning to others. Of course, doing all that research again -- hoo, boy -- it took me half a day to do it...
There are certain things that are so sensitive that they should not be discussed here (certain people could be endangered by doing so). And (possibly) using your BW e-mail could also do the same. I don't understand why opening a safe-mail account, and discussing certain things off-board would be a problem for you. (And, no, this is not about R. and the other server.) User4 (talk) 11:14, 8 March 2015 (UTC)


FYI, If you have something important to say about the administration or general editing of BoyWiki, I would prefer that you post it to the BoyWiki:Agora as those pages get saved whereas my user page does not. --Etenne (talk) 11:59, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

I understand how you feel about that. Still, there are other security issues that sometimes arise in connection to BW that do not directly have to do with the administration or general editing of BoyWiki -- other sensitive things. Before, you thought I was referring to Roderik (I wasn't). This is about something else. What's the big deal about just doing as I suggested, and e-mailing me? User4 (talk) 12:29, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
I have no problems emailing you, though I doubt I still have your addy as I delete my email frequently. My problem is setting up another email account (for personal reasons) and no, I did not think you were talking about Roderik (who has never been a member of the FSC or FSCo as far as I know) I figured you were talking about Melf. --Etenne (talk) 13:07, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
OK, great! -- then I'll e-mail you.
Grrrrr.... Melf.... don't start me on that... :-\ User4 (talk) 13:29, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
O BTW, I don't remember what email you recommended off the top of my head but remember that It is believe that both Fastmail and Hushmail have blocked Free Spirits domains and are likely not secure. See Email security. --Etenne (talk) 15:18, 8 March 2015 (UTC) ... Heh, heh, we bad, blood... ;-) User4 (talk) 16:14, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Pages in category "Agora archive"

... They don't sort by date. It is quite confusing... User4 (talk) 12:33, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

When I get around to it (and a few more pages) I will sort them by year.--Etenne (talk) 13:03, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Did you open an account yet? I gave *very* clear instructions...

RE: No..been busy too

Suggestion for "Featured whatchamacallit" for the Main Page

How about: Encyclopedia_of_Homosexuality? It really is an excellent resource! User4 (talk) 12:53, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

It still needs to be cleaned up and wikified a bit (as well as a bit more documentation/references) before it will be ready but yes, I am sure that would be a good choice. If you want, I can mark what needs to be corrected?--Etenne (talk) 13:09, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Sure - let me know. Also, how about taking the current Wikipedia article (it has some references) and combining it with the article that I created (which took me only three hours to do)?
I will take a look at the Wikipedia entry...perhaps we can lift a bit of the introduction. I will try to get to work on this as soon as I can... but the next few days (possibly weeks) are going to be hectic for as I have been ill recently and I have a number of doctor's appointments. --Etenne (talk) 13:44, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Please try to stay healthy!!! Take a good multivitamin daily (take two or three - the vitamins included are in such small quantities that it is perfectly safe to take more than one! (If you don't believe me, I can give references that confirm my statement...) - it's really important! As for me, when I'm sick, I just handle it myself... it has worked so far... doctors are not gods - they tend to over-medicate, which causes other problems... Hope you feel better soon! User4 (talk) 13:56, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Unfortunately, this is not a problem I can handle myself as I am in a significant amount of pain most of the time. And yes, I feel my doctors are SOB's for not giving me an adequate pain medication ( because it might "mask my symptoms") Fuckers! --Etenne (talk) 14:12, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, pain medication is the other side of the story. They won't give you enough of it! If you are suffering from problems with your back (a very common cause of chronic pain), then there are things you can do to "fix" your back that the doctors know nothing about. User4 (talk) 14:22, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Not it's not my back... though I am told that I need a fairly routine operation that I am working on setting up. Plus just a minuet ago, I almost feel on the ice taking out my garbage.... I could have killed myself :) Sucks to be old! --Etenne (talk) 14:28, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Well, that will teach you to pay more attention to what you are doing, instead of dancing off to the garbage can (or listening to music while doing so) -- "just a minuet ago, I almost feel on the ice"...
Actually, the problem is not getting old - it's being old! Yeah, it sucks... Their are many things, good and bad, to be said about aging User4 (talk) 14:55, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
"Their are many things" and you want to correct MY spelling.... I wonder if the adage, The blind leading the blind applies:) --Etenne (talk) 15:09, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
I would like to say, "I see what you mean," but, well, apparently I can't!. Actually that sentence began as a different one, but got modified along the way, and the "Their" didn't get fixed... Excuses are like assholes -- EVERYBODYs got one... ;- ) Hey, I thought a little humor might cheer you up! I guess not... :-\ User4 (talk) 15:18, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
OK done--Etenne (talk) 18:05, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Check your new e-mail, dude... ;-) User4 (talk) 18:53, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
I just hope the guy has not caused big problems for himself. Should he be warned? What do you think? User4 (talk) 19:39, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Some stuff for pulling things out of - saved here

I have not confirmed yet if these materials are available under any GNU license, or perhaps if they are available for copying freely. But anyway, we would never want to publish them in their present form!

This is from an "anti" site -- but he has done a lot of (often good!) research, and we can pull stuff out for articles that we are missing -- especially about people.

I have made articles of them, but they are NOT categorized. They should all be "Draft" and not considered to be "published" on BW. I don't know how to do that...

Here are the articles:

The format that BW displays things makes it very easy to see all the links, to copy stuff out, etc., so that is why I cannot work with these files on my local disk.

Could you let me know what you think I should do for now with them? User4 (talk) 12:23, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

just put them in your Category:Junktest for now and when you are done with them I can delete them.--Etenne (talk) 12:32, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Uh, I hate to ask a favor, but due to my computer's RAM being totally maxed out right now, reloading those (very large) pages just to add the category would be a serious problem for me. Could you do it for me? Thanks! User4 (talk) 12:40, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Sure, I suppose I will get around to it :) OH and just FYI, the right way to do stuff like this is to make them sub-pages of your user page.--Etenne (talk) 12:54, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Hey dudes!

I think I've finally found my place.

Hello, I hope so:)--Etenne (talk) 16:12, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

General Search and Replace

Please tell me that there is a way for me to give you a set of strings to search and replace in BW.

For example:

  • Search strings:

J. Geraci

Joseph Geraci

Geraci, J.

  • Replacement strings:

[[Joseph_Geraci| J. Geraci]]

[[Joseph_Geraci| Joseph Geraci]]

[[Joseph_Geraci| Geraci, J.]]

Having the capability to do this kind of search/replace function would save hundreds and hundreds of hours of editing. Really! In a very short time, one could fix hundreds and hundreds of links and other errors!

I can automate these kinds of searching/replacing so easily on my downloaded .XML copy of the site... But that doesn't help BW much... User4 (talk) 21:43, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I am not sure what you are asking. When you do a search do you see the option "containing" then the key word you typed? If you are asking me why I add [[Category People| last name, first name]] it's so peoples names alphabetize right --Etenne (talk) 22:17, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Well, I found 13 examples of the search strings I mentioned above in the current BW articles which need changing.
I am talking about automating the search and replacement of certain strings in the entire wiki, and almost instantly. A "string", by the way, is a set of delimited characters.
What I am referring to is explained here:
It may take some time to learn to use the StringFunctions extension, but in the future a huge amount of time (and I am NOT exaggerating!) can be saved by learning to use the extension! You can save yourself hundreds of hours of work this way. User4 (talk) 22:48, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Then yes and mostly no, it's possible but the guy who knows how to do it is away. --Etenne (talk) 23:03, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Well, it's just a matter of enabling the extension, then learning the syntax. Can't you do that? I mean, it seems such a waste for editors to spend so much time on menial corrections when the wiki software will do it automatically for them. In fact, I have seen you spend quite a few hours recently on tasks which could be performed almost instantly once you learn the correct syntax and enable the extension. Wouldn't you like to devote your time to other, more important things, and let the wiki software do "the donkey work" for you? User4 (talk) 23:13, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
This may be an even easier-to-use extension -- see:
User4 (talk) 10:35, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Documenting copyrights

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

  • "The documents available through the links below are provided for the use of researchers and scholars who might not be able to find the originals in libraries or elsewhere. It is assumed that all materials linked here are in the Public Domain, unless noted otherwise." (emphasis added)
... then can we reproduce those materials on BW? User4 (talk) 23:23, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

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

Could you link me to an example where other wiki's are doing this? So I can learn how they do it before I decide if we can do it. --Etenne (talk) 22:10, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Well, it's not a wiki, but it's a site by Dr Gerald Jones, who is an open BL and has written extensively about the BL "problem". His main page is:
And the page with the disclaimer is:
He has had his site for 8 years, and there has been only one complaint -- about reproducing a certain set of materials -- so he just removed them from his site. He has had no other problems about any of the other materials in 8 years even though the antis would just loveto have an excuse to "get him". User4 (talk) 22:26, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Cool, but I really need to know how other wikis handle this, particularly Wikipedia. Maybe Lysander ‎will know? I need to be able to see some kind of policy that allows this or some indication that this is an accepted and common practice on wikis. --Etenne (talk) 22:44, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
The more I think about it, this is likely not consistent with BoyWiki's TOC that wiki content be free and open licensed (unless your contribution is in the public domain). So I am thinking that we can't allow it... unless someone can show me that there is a provision for doing it. --Etenne (talk) 22:57, 11 March 2015 (UTC)


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

Actually, commentary made before/during/after the introduction of various laws/prohibitions is available, but unfortunately, not very widely. Are you looking for such information? If so, which specific laws interest you? User4 (talk) 10:41, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm fascinated with the history of the pedophilia/age-of-consent-reform movement, and with the political/social/cultural background surrounding major changes in legislation (for example, the banning of child porn). Also, I'm interested in how it came to be that dissident views on these topics were silenced and became impossible to express without being ostracized. I'm also interested in other cultures that look at these issues without the preconceived notions that have come to dominate the discussion in the U.S. Lysander (talk) 18:28, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
The Problem with the early internet is most of that information did not get saved. And of course, there were no Wiki's to collect and preserver that information. That is not to say all that info is completely lost but it is very had to get to. As many different people saved different things or have knowledge of different things. The hard part is getting them to share or let loose of that info. --Etenne (talk) 21:50, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
@ Lysander: I could explain it all to you, but it would be a book-length explanation. Hey, now there's an idea... Actually, I already have some books on the subject(s), but they usually intersperse facts with fiction about ChildLove, and all of them are from "The Axis of Evil" cultures (the anglophones). Anyway, have you checked out this site: ? User4 (talk) 22:14, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
@ Etenne: Yes, that's true. And has excluded almost all of the good sites, even though they have copies of them. Bastards! And individuals don't want to share the information they have for fear of giving out personal details that may lead to them being "outed". You have to be so, so careful these days. User4 (talk) 22:14, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

A suggestion to save a lot of your time

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

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

Yes, I will get around to responding to your questions (you have to let me finsh my coffee first :)... however sometimes some of the questions you ask me require more thought, sometimes I simply don't know the answer, and somethings are simply not in my control to change. Even if you offered a large cash donation to BoyWiki, all the tech. people are busy on another project so anything that requires adjustments in the wiki software such as adding extensions ect, is simply not going to happen. --Etenne (talk) 13:36, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
User4, you can always resurrect ChildWiki on your own.. I'm just sayin'. Then you would have control. You gotta put your money and time where your mouth is, if you want stuff done.. Lysander (talk) 00:12, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Couldn't you load the file in a text editor (like Notepad) and then just put "<nowiki>" at the beginning of the file, and ""</nowiki> at the end of it, then copy the entire contents from the page you are editing, and just paste it into a message somewhere? Or, anyway, if you just post the file, I can look at the "page source" and see the whole thing. Some say I'm kinda good at .HTML... but what do they know? User4 (talk) 14:32, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
To do that wouldn't I need sftp access to download the whole folder? (I am simply your humble en.boywiki curator, I don't have that kind of access).... this is beginning to sound like work that is above my pay grade :) --Etenne (talk) 14:53, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Are we talking about just one .HTML file, or many?
If it's just one file, then don't worry - it's really easy! I assume you can load the .HTML file in your browser, right? Then do so, and right-click on the page, choose "view page source", then when that opens, press CONTROL + A to select all, then CONTROL + C to copy it, then open:
and past it there. Then put the "<nowiki>" at the beginning of the article, and ""</nowiki> at the end of it, then save it! See? Easy as pie! User4 (talk) 15:09, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
If it is many files, then it is a little more difficult, depending on how many files we are talking about. I can explain that if need be... User4 (talk) 15:09, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes, Please explain--Etenne (talk) 15:17, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Well, part of the explanation was in the file you deleted. There are still things you can do, using tools like FDM, but we had not gotten to that point yet. Using FDM is still an option, and combined with the information which you deleted, would fix your problem. User4 (talk) 20:31, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Deleting things which are jointly being worked on

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

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

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

What happened to userspace? Lysander (talk) 19:03, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
I am really not clear on what the "userspace" is, or how it works. Actually, I have no idea at all about what that means. User4 (talk) 19:18, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
In other words, put it in User:User4/ARTICLETEMPORARY. Lysander (talk) 19:34, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
We were working on it (and I still haven't got a handle on how to use "userspace" correctly), when Etenne deleted it without giving me any notice, and before I had the chance to do anything with it. User4 (talk) 20:26, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
How naughty. Where's the wooden spoon? Lysander (talk) 00:56, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
I was thinking we could make him kneel on a ruler for, say, the next year or so. Or worse, make him study the difference between hosting material on a site, and merely linking to material on other sites (which is absolutely perfectly totally completely legal and acceptable, but he does not seem to understand that yet. ;-) User4 (talk) 07:53, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Maybe he understands but disagrees, or his hands are tied by BoyWiki council policy? Lysander (talk) 19:23, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

I think we need the following category:

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

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

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

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


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

Total number: 392

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

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

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

That is nice for them however BoyWiki is going to be categorized by hierarchy, although sub-categories may be a member of more than one category. The uppermost categories in the hierarchy are Encyclopedia, Entertainment, Life and everything else is a sub-category of one these main topic areas. Keep in mind that BoyWiki is not 100 percent an encyclopedia in the same way as Wikipedia. BoyWiki does not have such a narrow scope. BoyWiki is more of a repository of information pertaining to boylove history, culture, and heritage, art... etc.... We are not "BoyWikipedia" or "BoyEncyclopedia" and were never intended to be. If BoyWiki was actually a museum with a physical local, you would find separate rooms for the different areas of study. You wouldn't find Egyptian mummies in the same room as English folk art simply because they both start with the the letter "E".
--Etenne (talk) 11:11, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
You got my e-mail (the copy). We had this discussion almost a year ago. I tried explaining clearly then -- but you did not seem to understand what I was saying. You still don't seem to understand.
Have things your way - put things in your lovely (and often misleading) categories -- those categories show up BEFORE the listing of Encyclopedia articles. But, still, what skin is it off your teeth to just GIVE TO PEOPLE THE CHOICE OF EITHER SEARCHING THROUGH YOUR (ARBITRARY) CATEGORIES, OR SIMPLY SCROLLING THROUGH A LIST OF ARTICLES ARRANGED ALPHABETICALLY! By not doing so, you risk alienating visitors to BW. Or is that what you are trying to do? User4 (talk) 23:31, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
That is what portals are for. If you want to create such a portal feel free. See example: --Etenne (talk) 23:44, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Your answer is nonsensical. User4 (talk) 00:04, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Pro-Pedophilia and Wikipedia Child protection

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

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

El castillo azul

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

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

Encyclopedia of Homosexuality?

Not sure what you mean Encyclopedia of Homosexuality--Etenne (talk) 13:09, 14 March
The redirect must have been created by mistake.... I removed it.--Etenne (talk) 14:18, 14

Alvaro de Luna

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

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


Done Category:Spain

Mary Kay Letourneau

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


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


No, Someone posted a few links to BC once but that was a long time ago. --Etenne (talk) 00:19, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Maybe we can get that BC link, and also we can do our own sleuthing. It's typically the same usual suspects getting these articles deleted, so you can look in the deletion log and in their contributions (perhaps narrow it down to pages starting with "User talk:" (to find deletion debate notifications) or "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/" if you want to focus on those). If a banned user's sockpuppet gets unmasked, there will usually be a mass deletion of pages he created, so keep an eye out for those in the deletion log.
We should start compiling that list of deleted articles here, and then maybe eventually we can find a Wikipedia sysop who will retrieve the text of those articles for us, so we can post those as subpages of, e.g., BoyWiki:Deleted Wikipedia articles (or whatever we want to call it). We should also create articles about these usual suspects, to draw attention to their contributions. Lysander (talk) 00:39, 15 March 2015

Start here:

... then here:*/

... also, Wikipedia is regularly crawled by robots, so you can review the history of all articles, and by entering the name of an article you know was deleted, you can then see the "deleted" message, and go back to earlier crawls, and find the page.

Then (for articles in the past couple of years _only_, try:

(... I've been typing so much today that my fingers are bleeding! ) User4 (talk) 22:07, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Speaking up

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

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

I am sure there are lots of reasons, some people are afraid of even trying to learn basic wiki code, don't feel they have the time to do this, lack the skills necessary to write a factual article (even though wiki is pretty much formula writing), but more likely, it is much easier to argue and give opinions on BoyChat about topics you know nothing about than to actually put in the time to do a bit of fact checking. (reference: Facebook, Twitter, and most News, Blog, and YouTube comments :). --Etenne (talk) 10:16, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
@Lysander - People respond out of their own needs - either real needs, or artificially created needs. That is what advertising is all about. But - it must be done correctly. And that is where education, experience, empathy, and knowledge come in.
@Etenne. Effectively motivating people -- that is where education, experience, empathy, and knowledge come in. User4 (talk) 22:15, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Cost-benefit analysis

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

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

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

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

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

Crack and CP laws

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

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

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

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

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

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

I think people feel that it's dangerous for pedophiles to associate with each other or be members of organizations, since those groups could become fronts for organized child exploitation. People only want pedophiles to meet each other in the context of group therapy sessions in which there's an expectation that they snitch on each other whenever they become aware of someone's engaging in risk-relevant thoughts or behavior; and actually, the average citizen isn't all that happy about those therapy sessions going on anywhere near his backyard. It is considered essential that clinicians who are staunchly opposed to pedophilia be in charge of these sessions, of course, and that pedophiles have no voice in organizations like the APAs that play a role in stigmatizing and pathologizing their attractions and otherwise deciding their fate.
Normally, people respect the right of even those groups they're opposed to, to lobby for political change. That doesn't apply to pedophiles. Although I see that "When asked whether he saw any difference between advocates for legalization and advocated for pedophiles, Donnie Marshall, Deputy Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), responded that he did not see a difference", in practice it's not considered as socially acceptable to listen to what pedophiles have to say, as it is to listen to the arguments of drug legalizers. It's assumed that pedophiles just want to rationalize their behavior (although drug legalizers are also sometimes accused of wanting to use drugs themselves). Lysander (talk) 20:11, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
That doesn't apply to pedophiles. Lysander (talk) 20:03, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
You can't listen to what the demons say - Satan is directing them. "Good" must triumph over "Evil". It is, after all, the "Christian way". User4 (talk) 23:05, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
The younger generations are increasingly secular, so at some point secular arguments will need to be made to support these policies. Lysander (talk) 00:32, 19 March 2015 (UTC)


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

Like I told User4, right now no. All the Free Spirits techs. are working on another large project and nothing is going to get done until that is finished. From their perspective, BoyWiki is updated and secure and is not a priority right now and they have other more pressing matters to devote their limited time to fixing. --Etenne (talk) 10:47, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Can we get it put on a list of tasks that we need done when they get the time? Lysander (talk) 18:45, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
That depends, first I would have to run it past the BoyWiki Council, then if they agree, I can ask the tech. and if he agrees then yes. --Etenne (talk) 18:52, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Cool, thanks. Scribunto has come a long way since its first release, I think; I just installed it on a MediaWiki 24.1 installation yesterday and it worked immediately. Lysander (talk) 18:55, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
The first question I am going to get asked is, does it present any security issues? Could it be used nefariously? --Etenne (talk) 18:58, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Well, that's what I was thinking too, but I don't know the answer. It's used on Wikimedia sites, including the English Wikipedia, so presumably they've found a way to lock it down and make it secure. Maybe it's secure right out of the box; that would be my guess. There are a lot of eyeballs looking at any code that's to be deployed on WMF sites. Also, even for extensions that aren't for deployment on WMF sites, the community is pretty security-conscious, and won't hesitate to tag extensions with a big loud warning if they are found or even suspected to have any possible security risks. Rest assured that Scribunto has no Microsoft logo.
More and more Wikipedia templates require Scribunto in order to work. For example, Template:Essay, Template:Archives, and Template:Infobox court case. I'd like to be able to copy over and use these templates. Lysander (talk) 19:05, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
I asked about adding the category tree, that's the best I can do for today. I just got out of the hospital and I am not at all well so bare with me.--Etenne (talk) 22:46, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Oh! Take your rest, and get well soon. Thanks for making the heroic effort to be here at all. Your consistency is probably why BoyWiki still exists. Lysander (talk) 22:53, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
I posted your request to the BoyWiki council to get their input. --Etenne (talk) 22:59, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. Lysander (talk) 01:00, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Response from the Wiki council

"This extension suggests adding a programming language (lua) to the wiki, accessible by all users. Nothing less!

Some people criticize us already for using javascript as security risk, that is a wiki native language...

And how many are already using wikitext efficiently?

The same thing can be done using a sampler template that could be written without this extension."

So basically, they are not in favor of adding this extension. --Etenne (talk) 18:16, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Okay, let me research and see if there is a way to address their concerns. There probably is. Alternatively, we can restrict editing access to the Module namespace to sysops, and have a Project:Requests for page imports page. Doing imports in that way is probably the cleanest way to bring in templates from Wikipedia anyway, because it will automatically bring in the documentation, sub-templates, etc.
By the way, here is a list of Lua stuff that for security and/or performance reasons isn't available to users using Scribunto. Lysander (talk) 20:52, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Revised proposal

Okay, can we present the Wiki Council with a revised proposal, to install Scribunto and also use $wgNamespaceProtection to restrict editing of the Module namespace to bureaucrats only (or maybe to members of some even smaller group, such as "module editors", which might consist of just one person (e.g. Etenne), as long as that person is an active user who can respond to requests for imports), so as to address security concerns? See mediawikiwiki:Manual:Preventing_access#1.10_upwards for implementation details on that.

Also, so that you can easily import templates from Wikipedia, I recommend setting: $wgImportSources[] = 'wikipedia'; For more info on how that config setting works, see mediawikiwiki:Manual:$wgImportSources. Thanks, Lysander (talk) 21:04, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Well it's like this: I can ask the Wiki Council to revisit this idea and even if they agree, I strongly suspects that the tech. staff will not... no matter how much we beg. On the other hand, they did agree to add the category tree extension (which I am very happy with BTW) and I didn't even have to suck anyone's dick to get it done :) So that is progress.... --Etenne (talk) 13:08, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Technically they're correct that we can get by without Scribunto and create new templates from scratch to do everything that Scribunto would do. But the same argument could be made for ParserFunctions, Cite, etc. I would definitely include Scribunto on any list I were to make of the dozen or even half-dozen most essential MediaWiki extensions to have around, for the same reasons that ParserFunctions and Cite are essential, namely that they're so widely used in content one might want to import from Wikipedia.
Well, maybe wait awhile and then revisit the issue? I'm not sucking their dicks, though.. Scribunto is cool but not that cool.. :)
I would compare it to eating ass, though.. your partner might balk at first, saying "I know there's no logical reason why it would be dangerous if everything's clean, but I still don't like the thought of it." But if you keep barraging them with informative articles and explanations of the benefits for them, and saying how much it would please you and make you happy, they may eventually relent, however reluctantly. Of course, it can also be helpful to give them some time to think about it and get used to the idea.
Also, sometimes you have to accommodate counter-requests that seem unnecessary but help put them at ease. For example, a partner may say that in order to feel comfortable eating your ass, they'll need to do it in the shower just to have maximum assurance that everything is clean. I would compare that to making the Module namespace open to editing by sysops only. Lysander (talk) 17:05, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Bad faith

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

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

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

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

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

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

Collateral damage

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

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

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

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

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

Easy because it should be "Academic literature" but I believe that it was you who requested I create that category and I likely did not want to argue with you over something that trivial. I know that Scientific literature actually means scientific journals and periodicals etc. As always, you are free to add your own categories as appropriate and I really hate categorizing other peoples work but since no one here seems to understand [[Category:MY TOPIC]] I am forced to add topics that I know nothing about to categories, that I care less about..then listen to you bitch because you are unhappy. I suggest if you want it in the right category.... you learn to understand our category structure and do it yourself! --Etenne (talk) 00:09, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
'Easy because it should be "Academic literature"'
Nope. Sorry, but that is the wrong answer. Try again.
"As always, you are free to add your own categories as appropriate..."
Is that a lie, or are you simply giving a twisted version of the truth? Articles that I have included in several categories - one of which was "Encyclopedia," you have then gone back and removed the Encyclopedia category.
So, I am "free to add [my] own categories as appropriate," and you are "free to arbitrarily decide that the Encyclopedia category is 'not appropriate'" and remove it.
Then - how could it be that I am "free to add categories" (and Encyclopedia is indeed an "appropriate" category) given that you will just remove that category?
Lest you forget: Easy because it should be "Academic literature" is not the correct answer. Try again. User4 (talk) 01:35, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, I've felt some guilt over leaving stuff uncategorized. But it's tougher here than on Wikipedia. Wikipedia already has an established category scheme covering several million articles, so it's relatively easy to fit new articles into that scheme by looking for related articles or typing part of a possible category into HotCat and seeing what it suggests. Also, there are plenty of wikignomes on Wikipedia who love spending all their time categorizing other people's articles. Here, we don't always have those advantages. Also, BoyWiki's categorization scheme is a little eccentric. Maybe there's a help page about categorization somewhere? Help:Categories?
@Lysander: "A little eccentric?" That is a masterful understatement.
There are a lot of sites with unusual schemes; for example, Mises Wiki has an argumentation namespace. Sometimes I wonder if BoyWiki could benefit from something like that, but it would depend on users' being willing to contribute content to it. Lysander (talk) 05:12, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
There are BoyWiki users who sometimes dump a bunch of text into mainspace and expect others to clean it up, or maybe they figured they were going to clean it up themselves later, when they got around to it. I think to myself, couldn't they have at least written a decent, properly formatted first sentence summarizing what the article is about? But whatever, I take one for the team by fixing it. Lysander (talk) 00:31, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Frankly, Just add it to the a new and most generic 2ed level or third level category you can think of. Right now, we don't have enough entries for "French artists from the 1800's born in Paris". --Etenne (talk) 00:38, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Can we also request installation of CategoryTree? It could make it easier and quicker to explore the categories and find out what's there. Lysander (talk) 00:46, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
The problem is that it was designed for Wikipedia and many of our categories may be more BL specific. I wish I know an easy way to do this or had one one of them guys who enjoy that sort of thing. I will think about it and maybe when I am less tired and have less on my mind... I might come up with something. --Etenne (talk) 01:05, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
I haven't noticed a problem with it on wikis other than Wikipedia. Lysander (talk) 01:49, 19 March 2015 (UTC)


Maybe one way to encourage users to categorize pages is to, when adding categories, note the category in the edit summary, like in this edit. Then casual browsers of Special:RecentChanges will get an idea of what categories are available and be more likely to use the right ones. It occurs to me that edit summaries are a convenient way to communicate that sort of information to all users of a small wiki like this one, since everyone will see it even if they don't look at the diff.

Maybe edit summaries represent an underutilized opportunity in other ways, too. For example, I normally leave it blank when I'm expanding an article, but if the edit is adding a fact that I want to bring to the attention of all users (including those who might not have taken an interest in that article yet), that could be a quick way to tell them about it. Lysander (talk) 02:38, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

In Reality.

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

Jimbo wrote, 'Remember, an encyclopedia is not a data dump. The word "sum" has a purpose in that statement... an encyclopedia is not "all human knowledge" it is the "sum" of all human knowledge. It is specifically delimited for very good reasons.' Inevitably some information is lost when you only keep the sum of a bunch of numbers and discard the numbers themselves. Lysander (talk) 04:38, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. could you please explain what you are tring to state here, Lysander? Lister34 (talk) 05:35, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Where Wikipedia lies or misleads, it's mostly by omission rather than commission. That's part of the reason why BoyWiki exists. Lysander (talk) 05:45, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Mabe, could you list some of the times in which Wikipedia has done these things that you are talking about here? Lister34 (talk) 08:29, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
For example, the deletion of certain articles (see the Wikipedia article for examples). Also, the ArbCom banning of users for expressing dissident views off-wiki; who knows what articles they would've written by now if they hadn't been banned. Those users usually migrate over to wikis like BoyWiki, or wherever else they can find safe haven, so a comparison of the articles we have here to what exists on Wikipedia will give you an idea of what Wikipedia is missing. Also, when the banned users sock at Wikipedia, their articles are deleted. It creates systemic bias. Lysander (talk) 21:32, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi Lister34. I have made some comments regarding problems with the Wikipedia article within a copy of the article saved here: Perhaps those (few) comments will be useful to you in understanding some of the bias within the article. User4 (talk) 22:38, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Hello, thank you User4. Just a question. Is your page about the criticism of Wikipedia"s article about pedophilia changed or updated to match recent changes to the article?Lister34 (talk) 04:01, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
I believe that I used the most recent version of the article, but I could be mistaken. Why do you ask? User4 (talk) 04:20, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

I think you are doing an excellent job at BW, for the most part.

I may bitch and whine about some things, things that I feel are very important. That's my nature -- to try to improve things.

But I am amazed, when I look at BW as a whole, the great stuff that you are doing, and your knowledge of things that I know absolutely nothing about (and have no interest in learning, either)!

Please take my comments and criticisms in the spirit with which they are meant -- which is to make BW better, and not to attack or criticize you personally (though sometimes that is how they may appear).

I hope you feel better soon. I know it's a drag when things go wrong with one's body. Why, I myself am currently suffering from... oh, wait... who cares about that? I just hope I live long enough to finish all the stuff that I have already started...

Anyway, best of luck with everything! User4 (talk) 19:03, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Totally hypothetical question

If we lived in an alternate universe in which there were no laws against child porn, would BoyWiki allow non-sysops to upload images? Lysander (talk) 21:58, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't know. Maybe in that Universe, people would have learned to accept and respect each others differences and there would be no BoyWiki as we would all be one great big human family. --Etenne (talk) 10:01, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Well, prior to 1982 (New York v. Ferber), there was still an age of consent, but there were much more robust constitutional protections of free speech. We are, in a way, on great big human family already, since we all come from the same genetic lineage; it's just an abusive family with domineering patriarchs and matriarchs. :) But the kids get rebellious sometimes and are able to successfully get away with doing what they want sometimes. Lysander (talk) 16:25, 23 March 2015 (UTC)


It seems like it would be useful to categorize the U.S. states as Category:States of the United States and then perhaps make that a subcategory of Category:United States of America. We should eventually have articles for all 50 states, plus Puerto Rico and other commonwealths, territories, etc. Lysander (talk) 18:16, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

RE: State by state rape and abuse laws file

United_States_state_by_state_rape_and_abuse_laws is a much larger file than necessary, due to it being in .HTML format instead of wiki format.

Could you possibly run it through that online "convert .HTML to wiki" thingy, to reduce the file size? I can't do it myself because of my browser configuration (and I don't want to mess with how my browser is configured - it is finally working fairly correctly). User4 (talk) 11:21, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I can give that a try. I will try to get to that today before I have to leave out...if not... when I get home latter. --Etenne (talk) 11:35, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
I need the page source for this... I need to take a look at what it is suppose to look like.--Etenne (talk) 12:04, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
I published a list of information, and simple lists of information cannot be copyrighted. All the information quoted is in the public domain, as they are state laws: User4 (talk) 12:37, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
OK, I took a look and I can do that. I thought there might be extra boxes. It might take me a day or so to fix it up ( And make it all pretty:). --Etenne (talk) 12:48, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Before putting too much time into it, we might consider finding/creating an updated list. Those laws were the ones in effect 12 to 14 years ago, and many of those laws have been changed - and made even more draconian! User4 (talk) 13:43, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
I can also help you with this sort of thing, if you just need reformatting done. The most important thing, when updating lists, is to make sure you give a citation to the code section so people can check it later and verify that it hasn't changed. For example, the age of consent article lists a lot of ages of consent with no citations, and I have frequently run into articles that contradicted that information. But I couldn't tell right off the bat which was the more current information.
Also, if it does change, and you happen to know the legislative history behind its changing, that's helpful to note in the U.S. state article. The U.S. state articles should ideally not only say what the law is but also describe the politics behind how those laws got to be what they are now. That's useful information for activists, scholars, etc. Lysander (talk) 16:02, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

RE: Changes to software that may entail security risks

If what we now are using works (and given that we are not exactly overloaded with user input at this point) I think we should stick with the software we have, and not have to worry about even potential security risks with newer software. "Better Safe than Sorry."

And when we are talking about "security" we don't simply mean risking having to click on the "undo" button of an article that was tampered with (or even -- in the worst-case scenario -- having to re-upload the entire wiki's contents from a backup).

When someone's personal security is at risk (their real-life identity, their livelihood, their relationships with friends and neighbors, etc.) there is no "undo" button to click on. User4 (talk) 04:07, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

What "newer software" are you talking about? Lysander (talk) 04:32, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
I am not sure what you mean by "undo button" as this can be found under "View history". However, I am too lazy to log out right now to see if that is an option only available to Admins like the "Deleted user contributions" button. --Etenne (talk) 13:41, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
@Lysander: You post elsewhere:
Install Scribunto and also use $wgNamespaceProtection to restrict editing of the Module namespace to sysops only, so as to address security concerns.
... and when I suggest not installing software that may involve security risks, you say, "What "newer software" are you talking about?" I mean, just how disingenuous can a person be?
BTW -- when are you going to become a Sysop at BoyWiki? Soon?
@Etenne: By "undue button" I mean the, for example, (undo)
DON'T CLICK ON THAT LINK! (unless you want to undo all the work that went into making that file!)
I meant that if a person's life is destroyed because he is "outed" there is no (undo) for him to "click" on. If an unscrupulous (or just plain stupid) person were to become a Sysop here at BoyWiki, and if Scribunto were installed, the potential exists for an exploit that could compromise the security of visitors and users at BoyWiki, leading to their "outing" -- which no (undo) exists to remedy. User4 (talk) 02:29, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
So maybe, instead of restricting the editing of that namespace to sysops, restrict it to bureaucrats, or some even smaller group of users (e.g. "developers" or "techs" or something). Etenne could be made the only member of that group, if that's deemed desirable. It just needs to be someone who is actively involved in the wiki and can respond to requests for imports. Lysander (talk) 03:15, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Deletion summaries

So that users browsing RecentChanges can tell at a glance what is going on, and so that posterity browsing through Special:Logs/delete without knowledge of what's happening on the wiki now can understand the reasons why, I recommend using informative deletion summaries. Revising MediaWiki:Deletereason-dropdown to list the most common deletion reasons, if it doesn't already, can be a way to do this without putting in a lot of effort. Thanks, Lysander (talk) 02:16, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

There, Etenne, are you happy now?

Almost two hours of my life shot to hell writing BoyLovers_and_their_travels_around_the_world. And now my fingers are aching, I'm so hungry I could even eat a Big Mac, and if I don't go and piss soon, my eyes are going to turn yellow! I sure hope it was all worth it! User4 (talk) 22:31, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Defining boylove

It's been said that love "is a short word, easy to spell, difficult to define, and impossible to live without." It's such an elusive and complicated concept that the Greeks came up with many different words to describe its different forms, including agápe, éros, philia, storge, (philo)xenia, latreia, etaireia, eusplahneia, omoria, pathos, pothos and piste.

There are prostitutes who put love and respect into their care for their clients, and clients who are the same way toward their prostitutes. I knew a prostitute whose customers would blow up their (the prostitute was androgynous and genderqueer) phone all the time, even after they left the area, because the clients got addicted/attached to that particular prostitute. On the other hand, there are couples, whose sexual relationships aren't considered commercial, who don't treat each other with much love and respect.

It's a great step in the right direction to not look down on other people for having relationships with people outside their age group. But what about also not looking down on people for having commercial sexual relationships? Are we going to define love in such a way as to exclude those relationships from qualifying as "loving"?

Sad to say, some guys are lonely and can't find anyone who will have sex with them unless they're helping out that person financially. That's as close an experience as they get to love. And maybe it would even fall under some of those Greek categories of love.

They don't want to exploit anyone; they just want human touch and affection. And maybe some of them also have an attraction to young people. Are they bad people for having all those qualities? In many western countries, society has set up all sorts of divisions between the generations so that it's hard to have access to kids unless you're a family member, teacher, etc. or you engage in risky activities such as looking for kids online. Therefore, it's understandable that some people wanting to have sexual relationships with children (whether long-term or short-term) would go to other countries, where young and older people mingle more freely. Lysander (talk) 22:58, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Would you please advise the other editors

Would you please advise the other editors not to edit my contributions until I have had a chance to work on them myself for awhile?

I understand all the "edited unmercifully" stuff, but still -- when I create an article I should have the right to work on it awhile without others jumping in and making major modifications, shouldn't I? If I were to do the same to some of the absolute **** being created by others recently, I'm afraid it would be "likely to cause problems" -- something that I'm sure we all wish to avoid. No? User4 (talk) 03:57, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

You could use Template:Inuse or something. Or create it in the draft namespace or your userspace and then move it. By the way, you could've come to me directly, and I would've told you the same thing, which might have resolved this without needing to involve a third person. Lysander (talk) 04:09, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Learned helplessness

One of our editors seems determined, by his article submissions, to foster Learned Helplessness among visitors to BoyWiki.

This is "providing aid and assistance to the enemy," and goes against the very reason that BoyWiki exists!

Is treason "sufficient cause" for excluding such an editor?

User4 (talk) 15:08, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm getting really sick of this jerk

He moves things around without asking first.

He renames things at his whim (to incorrect names)

He creates articles that harm BoyWiki, and give BoyLovers a bad name.

He edits the text of other users' comments. (YOU could have moved my comment from that "Frank" page, but you didn't. He decided he knows better than you.)

He has vandalized a number of my pages already, either removing material that is actually relevant, or doing other stupid and absurd things.

He has made himself into a new Sysop here - he does whatever he wants to do. And, no, some of what he does CANNOT be "undone". Where is the stuff he removed from the O'Carrol "Radical case" book article? It appears to be gone forever -- I spent 2 hours trying to find it. It is GONE!

And, to top it all, I now refuse to read whatever comments he makes. He does not respond to questions from me, he changes the topic instead of responding, he refuses to admit when he makes a mistake (and he makes a lot of mistakes), etc. etc. So, reading (or responding) to his comments (for the most part) is a complete waste of time.


It would have been nicer if you had said "I'm getting really sick of this user's behavior". Also, if you wanted to provide a deletion rationale on the page itself (rather than its talk page), you should've done that as a parameter to a suitable template, e.g. Template:Prod or Template:Delete.
Unfortunately, I'm now pretty much wiki-homeless. I have nowhere to go, where (1) I haven't been kicked off, and (2) my content is within the project scope. Basically, what happens is, I get labelled as being part of group X, and therefore group Y doesn't like me because group Y hates group X; but group X will say "we don't like him either; he's not really one of us and we don't want to be associated with him."
It kinda reminds me of NAMBLA. Homophobes hate NAMBLA because the Bible says sex between males is bad. But the mainstream gay movement hates NAMBLA too, because they don't want to be associated with pedophilia. Everyone else who might otherwise be sympathetic to NAMBLA just ignores them because they figure, "I better not defend them, or people will think I'm one of them." Lysander (talk) 18:12, 28 March 2015 (UTC)


Brad Jorsch writes, "Lua is particularly well-designed for sandboxing, and was thoroughly reviewed by Tim Starling, who is one of the WMF's top security and performance experts, as part of the process of developing Scribunto. When using the standalone interpreter, only a simple "server" runs in the full environment; most Scribunto code is loaded in a sandbox that has all "dangerous" functions removed, and user code is further loaded in another sandbox within the sandbox. When using the luasandbox PHP extension, the "dangerous" functions are not loaded into the Lua interpreter in the first place, and user code is still loaded within an inner sandbox.

"With the standalone interpreter, memory and CPU time limits are enforced using Linux's ulimit mechanism, while with the luasandbox PHP extension they are built into the extension itself. As for "The same thing can be done using a s[i]mpler template that could be written without this extension", if that's actually true for your situation then you may not actually need Scribunto. But on Wikipedia and other WMF projects, there were many templates (particularly things like "substr") that are now much faster and simpler with Scribunto, and there are other things that have been done with Scribunto that were effectively impossible before." Lysander (talk) 23:21, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

RE: Usefulness of the new article, "Issues in Child Abuse Accusations (with abstracts) "

If someone should happen to have an interest in legal issues surrounding so-called "child abuse," then this list provide a plethora of (relatively) unbiased articles which can be drawn upon when creating new articles for BoyWiki -- articles which would then be of value to BoyWiki.

Instead of so much of the recent crap that has been recently added as "legal articles". ;)

How about a little rationality here with regards to all these recent "bits and pieces" articles?

How come all those little these bits and pieces about "child porn" and "child trafficking" etc. etc. that have been appearing on BoyWiki lately, and which claim (without being warranted) to have the status of "articles" (though they contain very little information of any real value), are not simply incorporated into the main Child abuse article or the Child pornography article, where they really belong?

And, BTW, does that annoying "You have new messages from another user" thing ever just go away? I mean, in the morning my alarm clock eventually stops ringing when I ignore it. I think that message should just go away, too, if I ignore it and don't read any of those messages.

Merging and redirecting is always an option. As for the notification, just click on it and then navigate away without reading the messages. Lysander (talk) 18:21, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

"You don't need to have any experience in making Web sites or writing HTML: it's as easy as making a post on your favorite message board."

RE: Correct namespaces

What do you want - valuable articles that get people thinking and learning, or crap that is "in the correct name space" but doesn't? Huh?

I'll make a deal with you - I'll write the good stuff, and you deal with the "namespaces," OK?

And tell that yo-yo that snide remarks are not in the best interest of BoyWiki, especially when coming from someone who contributes little of real value but directs those snide remarks at someone who does "add value" to BoyWiki.

(Move log); 05:09 . . Lysander (Talk | contribs) moved page USER4/DRAFT/Save our children from the abnormfoodexuals! to User:User4/DRAFT/Save our children from the abnormfoodexuals! ‎(another failure to get the namespace and username correct (it's case sensitive))

Hey -- "User4 posts good, like a user should."

So what do you want - good grammar or good articles?

Essays, articles, and dummies who criticize others without thinking first...

  • "Lysander (Talk | contribs)‎ (Created page with "Who wrote this? User4? There should be an essay box template used that gives attribution and lets the user know at a glance that they're reading an essay rather than anything.."

This (what he probably considers to be a valid) "comment" about what is (very obviously -- as well as categorized as such) an essay demonstrates that at least one of our "users" here is not "all on the ball"...

"Who wrote this?" he asks "User4?"

It seems he doesn't even know how to view the "history" page of articles, either.

Why doesn't that user fix all the many many many problems with the (so-called) "articles" that he has submitted, before criticizing the submissions of others? That "Frank" junk article he submitted is still full of errors, none of which (I believe) he has corrected yet.

Oh, and by the way...

Now, what is still wrong with his Frank article?
I'm confused, so if there's anything in that article that can be fixed, please fix it; otherwise, I guess we can just delete it. Lysander (talk) 21:17, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Capitalization of article titles

There is and/or has been confusion regarding what should be the "correct" capitalization of words within titles of articles, particularly when the article is about a publication such as a book. A large number of redirects have been created.

This means that links to articles may become "broken" should these redirects be deleted. This then requires that a large number of articles be edited to fix the "broken links". This problem also makes articles look unprofessional -- the visitors expect given links to function, and when the links do not function, the editor of the article appears incompetent. How can we avoid these kinds of problems?

By fixing, rather than deleting, double redirects. Also, we should establish a site-wide standard concerning capitalization, if it doesn't exist already. Lysander (talk) 15:59, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

(Potentially) Dangerous changes made by (perhaps) unwitting pseudo-sysops

The following could be an extremely serious threat to the personal security of visitors who do not understand how e-mail works, how their IP address can be collected and compromised, and how LEO gather information.

I suggest that a tech person (who -- I know -- is unavailable) immediately review the wisdom of BoyWiki endangering visitors with this kind of "honeypot"-type facility.


This is very dangerous! And there should be a review of the access to editing rights of any user who attempts this kind of thing on BoyWiki without first consulting with the sysop!

Well, no changes have been made. No one can make changes to the software with out access to the server. Believe me no one is going to make dangerous changes to the wiki and BTW, the wiki doesn't even record your IP. If a mistake was made, all someone would see is a random number --Etenne (talk) 23:48, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

What is this website's stance on pedophilia and sexual attractions to prepubscents?

He, What is this website's stance on pedophilia and sexual attraction toward prepubescents? I would like to know. Thank s.. Lister34 (talk) 03:57, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

That a boylover is a boylover. I try to make BoyWiki as inclusive as I can however as an Ephebophile, BoyWiki very likely over represents my POV. --Etenne (talk) 09:13, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

This day in gay history

This link gives hits to a blog that gives info perhaps useful to your Date entries:


One way to encourage people to finish articles that were left in an untidy state is to use maintenance templates, which will automatically categorize those pages. Then when people are bored, they can look through those categories for stuff in need of more work. Lysander (talk) 02:37, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Please stop right now and take a look at this immediately -- Thanks.

Yes, thank you. I can use that as some of the references are somewhat confusing for my old brain (without something to reference myself). I can merge the two. --Etenne (talk) 12:01, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
I (almost) hesitate to add that I fixed all the 240+ references in that article I did in only about an hour and a half of work (and taking into account that I'm in a dead tired zombie state right now), while you have spent days on your version. How about I teach you some better editing techniques, huh?
I forgot to add this -- I can fix all the links to point to the original article (hoping that it will remain on the internet) and readers will be able to see all the other material the article references (and some of that information does need to be extracted and integrated into our article, too).

... that may be useful to you Etenne when editing, and perhaps as a supplement for folks to download.

Etenne, please talk to me about editing techniques. I hate to see you spend time doing unnecessary work when your time can be spent better on other things, OK?

You keep saying that but you don't add anything about editing techniques... I assume they are not top secret?:) --Etenne (talk) 20:08, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
I had a bunch of notes prepared in response, and some links as well, but the links were bad (sites were down or have vanished from the Internet) and while researching to find archived copies of those things (which took about an hour of my time), I then overloaded my system and it crashed. A reboot was necessary. When I came back online, I ran across some other things that were fairly quick and easy to do (you saw the new articles) so I went ahead and did those as I felt they were very important, interesting, and useful for visitors.
Are you going to use
If so, I can use that as an example of easier editing with regards to fixing the note refs.

Are you going to use

Yes, no, maybe... right now, I have more to do that I will ever have time to finish.

So feel free to use that as an example.--Etenne (talk) 16:13, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

OK. First you need the really great (free) editor Notetab.exe, but the NoteTab light free version.
It only works if you are using Microsoft Windows. If you are not then it becomes more complicated -- you need to install Wine on a Unix system to use it.
There is a copy here:
but it is NOT a .ZIP file, it is the NoteTab light setup file. It has been renamed to a .ZIP file because that site does not allow .EXE files. So it was renamed.
The site of the creator of the NoteTab programs -- NoteTab pro and NotTabe light -- is for some reason not available. Here is a link to their archived site which tells about their product:
Download the file (NT.ZIP) from the keepandshare link above, and rename it to NoteTab_Light_Setup.exe. Then run the .EXE file to install NoteTab Light on your computer.
Are you with me so far?

Aren't there a lot of better alternatives? I like Notepad++. On Ubuntu, I use Komodo Edit. Lysander (talk) 17:47, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Tell me what is next on your agenda to do, OK?

You should download the NoteTab light program as I said. There's another one (right up your alley!) called Editeur.exe (C'est très bien, mon ami!) but it only works in Windows XP and not later versions. But how can I advise you if you won't give me feedback!

Thank you

It is kind of you to clean up the material I am importing. The fact is that my eyesight has grown a lot weaker since the days I was editing Wikipedia, and I just do not have the stamina to spend long hours at the screen in the evening, as I did then. One request, I would like someone to bring in THIS image from wikipedia for the Athenian pederasty article I just uploaded:

Also, as an alternative to deleting the categories at the end of the articles, they could be created here in this wiki.

Another idea to discuss with the others. The English predominance of this wiki is perhaps not in anyone's best interest. Would you consider renaming it Paiswiki? It is also less ostentatious when working on it at the local cafe. Call that the "Starbucks test." Someone should be able to stare at your screen and have no idea what the hell you are doing. Haiduc (talk) 23:04, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I think we already have that image. I will look for it and if not I will add it tomorrow. According to some the name is already Etenne wiki:)--Etenne (talk) 23:43, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

here it is File:AEGISTHOS PAINTER -460c Love gift (Kunsthistorisches Museum Wien IV-1102) 852x1030.jpg

Tools an editor needs to save time

OK. First you need the really great (free) editor Notetab.exe, but the NoteTab light free version.

It only works if you are using Microsoft Windows. If you are not then it becomes more complicated -- you need to install Wine on a Unix system to use it.

There is a copy here:

but it is NOT a .ZIP file, it is the NoteTab light setup file. It has been renamed to a .ZIP file because that site does not allow .EXE files. So it was renamed.

The site of the creator of the NoteTab programs -- NoteTab pro and NotTabe light -- is for some reason not available. Here is a link to their archived site which tells about their product:

Download the file (NT.ZIP) from the keepandshare link above, and rename it to NoteTab_Light_Setup.exe. Then run the .EXE file to install NoteTab Light on your computer.

Are you with me so far?

User4 (talk) 17:18, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I can take you step-by-step through fixing this new article

This is the "raw" conversion:

We can do the article together (how romantic!) and you can see how it is done. OK?

I just dug up the original, at time of deletion. Check it out, it should make your lives easier. Haiduc (talk) 00:10, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

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

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

It's not that... just like you, I have been very busy in the last few days and I don't see it getting any better for at least a week. Plus with my recent health problems, it's not been a fun time for me. One of the BoyWiki admins just pointed out to me that on fr.boywiki there are a few entries on Japan that could be translated and added... which he feels are better qulity then what we have now... how's your french? :)
I have a way with languages... part of my "magic" you might say... Links, please? (I hope the articles are not very long... I'd really like to finish some other stuff I'm in the middle of)...
The Japan article is in your hands now, at least for the magic that you can do that I don't know how to. I won't touch it until you finish fixing what you can, OK?
Happy now? Do I get a cookie for being a good boy?
Yes, it looks like I am going to be in Japan for a few days to correct the code and then I need to go back and read the original French and correct some of the translation errors. And to be quite frank, my French is getting a bit rusty as I don't use it as much as I should. --Etenne (talk) 10:43, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
You may want to open each of the following URLs in a separate browser tab, along with the English BoyWiki Japan page in another for editing. If you want, I can fix the translation errors -- I may be faster at fixing them than you (or you may be faster at that than I am -- I don't really know).

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

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


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

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

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

Here's an example:

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

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

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

Sociogenesis or Sociogenesis

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

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

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

Yes, it's a serious problem, if Wikipedia is harvesting the IP addresses of those following embedded links. If you take BW offline, edit the exported .XML file of the entire site, then import it, you could fix the problem in an hour or two instead of taking days.
Etenne, when it comes to security for Internet users, either something is a serious problem that must be addressed or it is not a problem. There is nothing in-between.
Either we take all possible steps to stop Wikipedia (and other sites) from detecting that the visitor to their site has clicked a link in a BoyWiki article, and prevent them from IP address harvesting, or else we don't worry about it at all. There is no "middle ground" on this.
So, which is it?

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

I believe the modifications that Lysander has made to Template:W are sufficient to solve the problem. People can now see that it is an external link and can make a choice as to whether they want to click on it or not. Again, I want to stress that the use of this template within a paragraph text is not the best editing practice and I would give preference to making internal links or if necessary use [1] or make the link a reference. --Etenne (talk) 10:20, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
I notice too, from this page, that it's the browser that sends the HTTP referer header. So the user can set up their browser to not send these headers even if we don't use rel=noreferrer. It's also possible to use this hack. By the way, interwiki links on most wikis are a slightly different color than regular wikilinks, so I wonder if BoyWiki has a non-standard setup with regard to that? There might be a way to fix that issue, e.g. by changing the CSS. Lysander (talk) 20:04, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

A few interesting graphic files you may want to use on BW are at

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

  • Pederasty in Ancient Greece
Sourced from World Heritage Encyclopedia™ licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0
Help to improve this article, make contributions at the Citational Source
  • Seems high quality
  • Seems unbiased
  • Seems "open source" (creative commons) and therefore quotable.

I got a little farther and I saw this :(

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have told you what I can either you accept that or you don't. Somethings don't need to be made public.
You don't have to be so hard on people all the time. If you do, they won't cooperate with you. And if they don't cooperate with you, you are left with an impossible task - that of fixing everything that needs fixing at BoyWiki all by yourself.
So, which do you think is better (and easier) for both you and for BoyWiki? To "lighten up" (which seems somewhat difficult for you to do) or to try to accomplish an impossible task, one that you can never ever finish all by yourself?
I personally would prefer to have maximal transparency, except where it's necessary keep information private to shield BoyWiki and its members from attacks by the state. Lysander (talk) 19:11, 17 April 2015 (UTC)


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

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

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

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

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

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

Making more use of the Agora

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

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

BoyChat message for you re: ancient Greek (talk) 12:15, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

What do they call "essays" in newspapers?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wonder of wonder! One of the "unlikely events" really did occur! A search was done giving exactly what Etenne needed! Hmm... but Etenne didn't even have the common courtesy to be sure to "effusively thank" the one who did the search for him. Gee - I've got several tabs open with other sites, and other names that Etenne doesn't even have yet! Hmm... should I go back and get more site names for Etenne? Well, he didn't even have the decency to say "thank you" when I did it before. Aw, fuck it. I'll continue working on the books I'm preparing. At least people have the courtesy to thank me for doing those things.
User4 (talk) 10:54, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Thank you very much. I tell you this in all sincerity, in general I am very fond of you and appreciate the efforts you make for the BL community. But there are days, when like a 2-year-old that you do ware on my nerves. --Etenne (talk) 11:04, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Hmm... How long does it take to find/download/instal the CutePDFwriter printer driver? About two minutes in all? I wonder how long Etenne spends doing "print screen" captures of web sites? I've done it, and it is very slow and gives very poor results. But Etenne did not even acknowledge my suggestion about using CutePDFwriter! I guess he just prefers to waste his time doing screen captures. So I won't bother to give him any more good suggestions. He just ignores them, anyway. Gee, BoyWiki is a very strange place! I wonder if that's one of the reasons why it's so hard to find new editors for BoyWiki?
User4 (talk) 11:02, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Good quotes from Jim Finn former webmaster at BC

Pre-1998 quotes from him in the middle of the article. Most of it is about religious Christian boylover crap.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bill is a person.
He is also a young boy.
He has red hair.
He is an actor.
So he belongs in the category "People," because he is a person.
He ALSO belongs to the category "Boy," because he is a person who is a boy.
He is ALSO a boy actor, so he belongs in the category "Actors" and also to the category "Boy actors".
AND he belongs to the category "Boys with red hair" because he is a boy with red hair.
The last category is for those who have a special interest at BoyWiki in boys with red hair.
  • So the Bill article belongs to the following categories:
[Category:Boy actors
[Category:Boys with red hair

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

Bob is a person.
He is also a young boy.
He is the U.N. representative for boys from his country.
He has brown hair.
So he belongs in the category "People," because he is a person.
He ALSO belongs to the category "Boy," because he is a person who is a boy.
He belongs to the category "United Nations because he is a U.N. representative.
AND he belongs to the category "Boys with brown hair" because he is a boy with brown hair.
The last category is for those who have a special interest in boys with brown hair.

So the Bob article belongs to the following categories:

[Category:Boys with brown hair
[Category:United Nations

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

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

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

Does the above make sense to you?

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

Yes and no ( see and

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

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

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

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

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

You have to give me more to go on then that, can you link me to an example? --Etenne (talk) 17:02, 3 May 2015 (UTC) User4 (talk) 17:09, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
I meant an example of a template like this... that I can recreate. You can also do this page by page using

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

To all editors

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The board is:

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

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

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

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

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

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

I don't know. What does that mean? "My Philippine Experiences"? I hope you are not suggesting that people post about illegal acts? (or things that I would personally find offensive:)--Etenne (talk) 23:42, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps someone should interview Nycalvin. Lysander (talk) 03:47, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What is necessary to get him to do something about a problem he has created? To shove his nose in it, as some do with a puppy? Can he not read English? Is he blind? User4 (talk) 03:07, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

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

to get information to base articles on.






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

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

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

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

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

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

Well I was not around in 2006 but I remember reading that the database for BoyWiki became corrupt and there wasn't a back up so they ended up starting over. That would be my guess.--Etenne (talk) 11:17, 9 May 2015 (UTC) has at least one backup, done in 2006. I suggest that someone with time go back and check which articles -- existing in the backup -- are now missing due to the corrupted database problem. Don't look at me to do that -- I am doing, and have aleady done, enough for BoyWiki and for the other projects that I am currently working on and involved in! User4 (talk) 01:47, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Excessive category creation

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

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

BL and GL history

You were saying earlier that "GL's stood right beside their teleiophile heterosexual brothers with their torches and pitchforks in hand". I thought the way the history went was, originally there was no age of consent, and when the first age of consent was imposed, it only applied to girls, since girls' virginity made them more valuable as brides. Then feminists and others got the age of consent laws changed to be gender neutral, since they believed in gender neutrality as a general principle, and also viewed men as predatory and exploitative in general (whether homosexually or heterosexually).

So it seems to me that the problem here was that people didn't stop society from going down the slippery slope that led to our current situation. It's the phenomenon Martin Niemöller wrote about in his poem. They came for the girllovers first, and then they came for the boylovers. The solution, then, is for everyone to unite to stop oppression before it can get the narrow end of the wedge in the door, because once it does that, it'll be harder to stop it from expanding to cover larger groups.

Whichever group the government attacks, whether it's BLs or GLs, the other group needs to join in defending them, because next the government will attack the other group as well. Illiberal groups seek to establish a beachhead wherever it can and then conquer the rest from there. They rely on the fact that they can often begin by attacking a small group that no one else cares about because they're not in that group.

The wedge can work the other way too; in seeking to turn back the tide, we might sometimes find a weak spot in the government's fortress, in the form of a policy that doesn't directly affect our interests, but which can be attacked to get the process going in the direction we want it to go. For example, boylovers aren't directly affected by a case involving an 18-year-old boy possessing lascivious photos taken by his 17-year-old girlfriend, but bringing attention to such cases, which the public might more readily sympathize with, and changing the laws governing that sort of situation, might be a first step to gaining more liberty for all. Lysander (talk) 15:41, 11 May 2015 (UTC)


When you blocked User4 you blocked me as well. We share or shared an IP, which I didn't know. Wanker (talk) 22:24, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I got blocked as well, and I'm pretty sure we don't share an IP. There's some glitch in the way it's set up. Anyway, it shouldn't be necessary to block the user's underlying IP since this is a site that allows account creation by invitation only. Lysander (talk) 22:29, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Actually, we all share an IP. As an added security precaution, BoyWiki doesn't record IP's like other wikis..... but yes, I forgot to not ban by IP and only by user name. I don't like to ban people and I hope that I don't need to do that too often--Etenne (talk) 22:56, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I am quite angry now. So I will limit myself to a simple comment.

Anyone who considers a frank discussion using words of anglo-saxon origin to discuss the myths and realities of anal sex to be "inappropriate" or "off limits" on a wiki devoted to pederastic and pedophilic relationships between males -- relationships which often include sex -- is out of their mother-fucking mind! User4 (talk) 15:10, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Is a compromise possible? Maybe move the essay to Wanker's userspace? We could even put quotations around it, and call it User:Wanker/"Men fucking little boys". If you're worried about pages bringing BoyWiki into disrepute, this one would probably have more potential to do so, but in reality most people who know about BoyWiki already hate it and its agenda, regardless of how it's presented. So we may as well not alienate our own users by censoring their essays and discussions, as long as they're done in the proper places. Lysander (talk) 15:14, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I am starting to get quite angry myself. If all people want to post about is sex, then please do that on another site. The erotic aspect of Boylove is just one very small piece of a very large picture. So if you don't want to post about love, poetry, beauty, etc... and simply want to talk about sex then you should should likely be posting to alt.pornsite.of-your-choice and not here! This isn't the Usenet or Sexnet or the Darknet where you can focus on "fucking little boys" and the having hedonistic and all the abusing sex you desire. --Etenne (talk) 16:36, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
There's no rule that says anything about users' being required to post about love, poetry, or beauty rather than just sex. Besides, the enjoyment of love, poetry, and beauty is a form of hedonism too, since all these things bring pleasure. I also don't think the essay advocated any kind of abuse. Lysander (talk) 17:04, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
I shouldn't have to make a rule about that, that should be a given to any BL. BoyWiki is primarily about those things which enhance our lives as boyloves and give us pride in who we are as individuals and collectively... BoyWiki should showcase our accomplishments in arts, literature, science etc... as well as ways to enhance the lives of the boys we love as they move towards becoming the accomplished adults they hopefully will be. BoyWiki is not a porn site, it is not a sex site, and it certainly is not about "fucking little boys"!!!!! --Etenne (talk) 18:24, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
The whole point of the essay was to say that boylove is not about men fucking little boys. Maybe Wanker should have titled it boylove is not about men fucking little boys just to be clearer. By the way, we're kinda in the unfortunate situation now that anyone who publicly admits to being a boylover will tend to have his career in arts, literature, and science curtailed. Lysander (talk) 18:45, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
There is a misconception circulating: that I wrote Men Fucking Boys. That is definitely not true. All I did was add one word to the title. I do think it should be available (accessible) somewhere, Wanker (talk) 12:15, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I understand that. OK, I can admit that I may have flew off the handle a bit when I saw the title of that entry (I am not saying that this entry had illegal content). I might eve consider undeleting it under a different title. Things to keep in mind as a user on BoyWiki:

1. As I said before, the content needs to stay close to being PG13.

2. We absolutely can not have illegal content on BoyWiki or link to illegal content.

3. Posting stuff like "men fucking little boys" or anything that I find questionable or could lead to problems is going to make me do things that may be unpopular.

I am overall very fond of User4, he is very knowledgeable on many different subjects and I believe he is an asset to BoyWiki. He also has the tendency of trying to push the limits. He does this on purpose. He is not a stupid man and he knows what is crossing the line. He should have a good idea by now about what will "push my buttons" and what I will not tolerate. --Etenne (talk) 12:40, 15 May 2015 (UTC)


why is there an article on him? The words boy, sex, and pedo* do not appear in it. Wanker (talk) 20:26, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

That is a good question. Apparently the original user who posted that thought it was important for reason which I do not know. I am guessing it was for reference material on Ancient Greece. However my feeling on that is that these things could simply have short descriptions and be added either to Category:dictionary or perhaps a new category. I will have to think about it. --Etenne (talk) 14:00, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Creating a semi-hidden page

Is it possible to create a page that is only visible to registered users, or to just you and me? Thanks. Wanker (talk) 11:27, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

not that I know of or know how to do. --Etenne (talk) 11:52, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

A problem - the accurate rendering/display in web pages of Chinese/Japanese characters

This is a problem for some, depending on their browser settings, etc.

Wikipedia uses several templates to advise readers of the potential problem:

For special characters in general, with a link to how to "fix" the problem of incorrectly displayed characters, the following template.

(Note: View the following in "edit" mode for it to be more legible.)

{{Side box | class = noprint selfref | text = {{#if: {{{compact|}}} | You may need [[{{{fix|Help:Special characters}}}|rendering support]] to display the {{{special|[[Help:Special characters|special characters]]}}} in this {{#if:{{{section|}}}|{{{section}}}|{{#if:{{SUBJECTSPACE}}|page|article}}}} correctly. | '''This {{#if:{{{section|}}}|{{{section}}}|{{#if:{{SUBJECTSPACE}}|page|article}}}} contains {{{special|[[Help:Special characters|special characters]]}}}.''' Without proper [[{{{fix|Help:Special characters}}}|rendering support]], you may see {{{error|[[Replacement character|question marks, boxes, or other symbols]]}}}{{#if:{{{characters|}}}| instead of {{{characters}}}}}. }} | image = {{#if:{{{image|}}} | [[File:{{{image}}}|40x40px|link={{{link|}}}|alt={{{alt|}}}]] }} | style = width: {{#if:{{{width|}}}|{{{width}}}|22em}}; | textstyle = vertical-align:middle; font-size:95%; }}<noinclude> {{documentation}} </noinclude>

For Japanese characters, the following:

{{Contains special characters | compact = {{{compact|}}} | section = {{{1|}}} | special = [[Japanese language|Japanese]] text | image = {{{image|Nihongo.svg}}} | characters = [[kanji]] and [[kana]] | fix = Help:Installing Japanese character sets }}<noinclude>{{documentation}}</noinclude>

For Chinese characters, the following:

{{Special characters | compact = {{{compact|}}} | section = {{{1|}}} | image = {{{image|Zhongwen.svg}}} | special = [[Chinese language|Chinese]] text | fix = Help:Multilingual support (East Asian) | characters = [[Chinese character]]s | width = {{{width|}}} }}<noinclude> {{documentation}} </noinclude>

For an example of a page with such advisories, see:

For the help file providing information to readers regarding correcting problems with the display of certain foreign characters, see:

As BoyWiki is now publishing a large number of articles containing Japanese and Chinese characters, these types of advisories within the pages containing such characters may now be warranted. User4 (talk) 16:06, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your helpful advice. However, I still feel incompetent to fully tackle this subject and what I really need is to find someone who is an expert in Japan (the east) the same way Edmund is an expert in Roman history or Haiduc in Greek history. I feel this is too important a part of our history and culture to leave up to me:) But I will do what I can....--Etenne (talk) 17:11, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
I see that wikipedia:Template:Side box is yet another template with an #invoke statement. Lysander (talk) 20:45, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Are you simply pointing this out to me or are you asking that I recreate this template? --Etenne (talk) 21:16, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Missing template

There seems to be a missing template. Notice the following"

[[BC:968755|Hope through science fiction.]] by Lupercus, on [[BoyChat]].

The "[[BC:968755| seems to refer to a template.

I gave you links to the saved "pre-crash" version of BoyWiki.

I suggest you look for the lost template there, or write a new one. User4 (talk) 23:57, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't know what that was... it's not a template as a template would use { type brackets. My guess is that it was some kind of direct link to BoyChat posts that this version of BoyWiki no longer supports. It's really hard to say as I was not around back then. Was it removed intentionally? Or was it simply overlooked during the subsequent upgrades? I really can't say. --Etenne (talk) 00:57, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Well, there are dozens -- if not hundreds -- of these types of "links" in articles. They should all be corrected. User4 (talk) 01:09, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
OK, Feel free to correct them:) --Etenne (talk) 01:16, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
No problem. I'll export all BoyWiki articles as an .XML file, fix all of those problems, which will take me maybe 20 minutes, and then you can import the corrected .XML file back into BoyWiki. OK? User4 (talk) 01:23, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
You are asking me to do something which I do not know how to do. My guess is that it would require a level of access and tech skill which I do not have. --Etenne (talk) 01:34, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Good news! I just counted the instances of that string (in the current version of all articles -- not all previous edits done to articles) and only found 55. User4 (talk) 01:39, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

RE: martirwithacause

What did MWAC do other than to point out that he was being subjected to a campaign of harassment? And that allowing these campaigns of harassment discourages other posters?
When you say that he "pushes the rules to the limit" this is not relevant, as long as he does not cross the line and then break the rules.
The rules are very clear about certain things. MWAC has posted that he has engaged in the past in legal sexual activity with minors. This is not a violation of any of the rules. It does not endanger BoyChat in any way.
No police investigations can be brought about if someone admits that, in the past, they had had legal sex with minors. In Canada, for instance, someone several years ago could have had legal sex with a 14-year-old boy. That activity was perfectly legal. The age of consent has since been raised to 16. If someone posts about having had sex with someone under the age of 16 after the law was changed, then this violates the rules.
No one can be prosecuted for sexual activity with a 14-year-old boy which took place before the age of consent was raised to 16.
If that were the case, then tens of thousands of BoyLovers could be prosecuted. Since they cannot being prosecuted under Canadian law, then anyone describing sexual activities which took place before the age of consent was raised are clearly permitted to do so under the BoyChat rules. They can mention that they had engaged in such activities. No police investigations may be begun about what was (then) legal sexual activity.
Only sexual activity which is currently illegal under Canadian law could spark an investigation that could endanger BoyChat. MWAC having posted about his (then legal) sexual encounters with boys cannot spark an investigation of BoyChat.
But what it can spark is indignation among the VirPeds, and campaigns of harassment against MWAC. Which are clear violations of the rules.
Those who claim that MWAC is some kind of "danger" to BoyChat have never been able to point to even one single instance where anyone has been harmed by anything that MWAC has posted. When the critics are asked to do so, they never can point to any posts where MWAC has put another poster in danger.
They don't like MWAC describing his past sexual activities with boys. And that is why they make false accusations -- which they have never, and can never -- back up with links to any posts that MWAC has made that genuinely "endanger" the board or any of the posters!
If you ask the harassers for PROOF -- by their linking to a post made by MWAC that endangers any poster, or endangers the board -- they just change the subject and continue to just insist that their (false) accusations are true!
All the BoyChat posts are there to see. They cannot be hidden. MWAC is innocent of the ridiculous and absurd charges that have been leveled at him! User4 (talk) 02:40, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
I don't know how to respond to that. MWAC has some very admirable qualities. He is knowledgeable. He is intelligent. He also has quite a knack for pissing the admins off. I certainly wish him well and hope that he is spending his time in a useful endeavor and not ruminating on the injustices he may feel have been placed upon him.--Etenne (talk) 03:02, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Uh, you don't know how to respond to the truth? To respond to someone describing how campaigns of harassment were permitted against a poster because the VirPeds are allowed to harass anyone they wish who violates the VirPeds (twisted) views on BoyLove being sexual expressed?
Don't you see what has happened to MWAC? He has been unjustly and falsely accused, and then he has been banned even though he has not violated any BoyChat rules, or endangered BoyChat, or endangered any BoyChat posters, in any way at all?
So then you would agree that the "antis" who lie about BoyLovers should be allowed to continue to tell their lies about BoyLovers, and the BoyLovers should therefore "spend their time in useful endeavors and not ruminate on the injustices they may feel have been placed upon them"?
REALLY? User4 (talk) 03:11, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Would you like a link to the post by a poster claiming that he murders boys?
Would you like a link to a post where a current poster says that he is actually now planning to commit a murder?
See, I can back up what I say. Unlike the handful of posters on BoyChat who have (falsely) made so many claims about MWAC! User4 (talk) 03:18, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Let me add this -- those posts I mentioned above do really endanger BoyChat! MWAC's posts may piss off some people -- including the Cogs -- but they pose no danger to BoyChat or to the posters!. See, some people really hate it when the truth is told... User4 (talk) 03:38, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
See, I can back up what I say. Unlike the handful of posters on BoyChat who have (falsely) made so many claims about MWAC! User4 (talk) 03:18, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
I can't respond because I was not involved but can see both sides of the issues... based on the very limited information I have at this point. Frankly, I don't even know what the issue is anymore. You are asking me to pick a side in this and I simply do not want do that. I am sure that is not the answer you are looking for but it is the only one I have right now. Was MWAC treated unfairly by some people? Yes, I think he was. Did he contribute to the problem and alienate the BC admisn? Yes, that too--Etenne (talk) 03:41, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes give me those links.... they need to be deleted--Etenne (talk) 03:41, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Google has already cached those posts. They can be deleted from the BoyChat hard drive, but they cannot be made to disappear from the Google cache. If the LEO were really looking for an excuse to close BoyChat (or to issue a subpoena for the BoyChat logs, and get the IP addresses of the posters) then having those posts in the Google cache is sufficient for them to do so, whether the posts are removed or not.
So -- how come the LEO have not used those posts (and similar ones) to close BoyChat? Doesn't that seem strange to you?
And courts have ruled (I am 99.99% certain about this) that Google caches can be relied upon as "proof" that something existed on an Internet site. Google caches BoyChat posts within a very short time after the posts are made. Once they are cached, that's it! You cannot "make them go away".
So -- something fishy is going on somewhere... The LEO would like to close BoyChat, if they could, right? Ah, but ONLY IF they were not using BoyChat for some other purpose. And what could that purpose be? It makes a person wonder...
OK, I'll tell you this much: Someone has posted on the main page that he is planning to murder a man who molested him when he was a boy.
I'll let the Cogs find the post. Hey, what do I owe the Cogs, anyway? Why should I want to make their job any easier, after what they have done? Huh? Why?
Oh, and the other post is now several years old. MWAC had told the Cogs in a PRF that the post was there on the main page, and that they should find and delete it. Why did MWAC only tell them that much? Because at the time MWAC was on a 2-week ban (at Christmas/New Years, to rub it in and make it worse) for something that was NOT a rule violation -- see, the Cogs had just been angry at him.
And you know what? The Cogs never even bothered to look for that post! Even though MWAC PRFd several times about the post! So, will they look for the one I just told you about, the one that is on the main index page? I doubt it. See, the Cogs are not very competent at their jobs.
And what would happen if you told them that, huh? Well, instead of improving their performance, they would just get angry! And maybe they would then ban you!
Wallflower himself mentioned -- just before he was recently banned -- that there was an error on the main index page, on the date index. Did the Cogs look for the error, and fix it? NO! Why?
Hey, you tell me! User4 (talk) 04:17, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

A crime of passion, or premeditated murder?

Let's look at the posts I was talking about from the point of view of a prosecuting attorney in charge of the trial of a BoyChat poster for having killed a man.

Your Honor, the accused claims that he acted in a moment of passion when he killed the deceased.

We hold that the act was premeditated, and that it was carefully planned. The accused is guilty of murder, not manslaughter.

On 2015-June-17 00:14:52, Wednesday, the defendant stated, "I suddenly want to murder you all over again, you no good piece of fucking dog shit. You better hope I never see your stinking carcass ever again. Furthermore, it might be advisable that you start leaving lights on out doors at night and taking a good look around when you leave and return home. Just as a side note Pits and the like don't mean shit to me."

And the defendant continued, "I want to break your fucking neck. I want to cut your dick off and show it to you before I cram it down your throat....I had forgotten I was capable of this level of hatred. Or for that matter the desire to truly do another (idk I don't even want to call you a human being) harm....May you die 1000 horrible deaths you evil worthless worm you....I spit in you face."

Then on 2015-June-17 01:13:31, Wednesday, the defendant stated, "It official...I'm looking for you. I mean really digging....Those will be my last words to you, wait, they won't either. I want to shit on your grave."

Then on 2015-June-17 01:45:25, Wednesday, the defendant stated, "I just had the most fabulous thought! What if I were to find or just by some other twist of fate came face to face with you on August 15th this year? Wouldn't that be a hoot? Maaaan. Wouldn't that be kewl."

Your Honor, the date mentioned by the defendant was the anniversary of the date the defendant claims he was sexually abused by the deceased.

Then, on 2015-June-17 01:52:43, Wednesday, the defendant stated, "I'm in a whole nother mode here."

I ask your Honor, what was the "whole nother mode"? It is clear to the State. He had made his decision to pursue his plan and to murder the deceased.

The defendant then stated, on June-17 16:09:03, Wednesday, "I now have a physical address and a phone number. He is a big man. Prolly 6'2 or 3. He's gonna outweigh me by at least 60 lbs. I've been thinking, I'm going to have to get within 18 inches of him pretty quickly. He will no doubt put up a fight if he realizes what is happening immediately."

The defendant continued, "I'm going to take my time with this. I'm not playing tough guy here. I'm weighing throwing my life away against the satisfaction of ending his. Also there is plenty I want to say to it before it goes beyond the initial subdue. He is going to listen to me. I promise you that. I'm half crazy. Something has happened in my mind. What is my life worth? What has it ever been worth? Would it have more value in the end if I rid the world of this piece of shit."

Then, on 2015-June-17 16:40:50, Wednesday, the defendant stated, "He got away with what he did. I also know of other still living "victims" but I don't want the law involved in this. I want to handle it on my own.... During the night I went to the bathroom. As I stood at the toilet I looked around at the dingy little room. I looked at it for a second or two then I began to try to envision or experience it through the eyes of detectives who would no doubt be crawling over my barn for evidence against me if I do this.... My sense of justice is wounded. It writhes in pain. It cries out for retribution."

He continued on 2015-June-17 17:36:47, Wednesday, "I've already thought about that and it is entirely possible the I am their (his) day of disaster and that I am their (his) doom (which is to) rush upon them (him)."

Given the statements that the defendant made, the State holds that it is clear that the defendant had planned his crime well in advance. The crime was premeditated. Under the law, he committed murder, not manslaughter.

Therefore, the State asks for the death penalty.

So, how about you? What do you think? Do you think that the poster is planning to commit a murder in his posts? Or do you think that my suggesting that he is planning to commit murder is not correct? User4 (talk) 12:36, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I honestly have no idea what you are talking about or who you are referring to as I don't read even half the posts on BC and really this has nothing to do with BoyWiki. Perhaps you should email their admins. --Etenne (talk) 12:52, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Uh, you did ask me to tell you which post was involved, because you said you thought that it should be deleted, didn't you?
Now you think that I should e-mail their admins about this? Really? Aren't the Cogs monitoring the BoyChat board for real rule violations and real threats to BoyChat -- OR -- do they just use valid criticisms by a poster about campaigns of harassment against him in order to ban that poster, when that poster has not violated any of the rules?
As for the other post I mentioned -- where a poster said that he killed boys -- I PRFd that post several times, but the post was not deleted from the board. It is still there -- I just checked. So what use would it be to e-mail them about these newer posts? And what do I owe them, anyway? Have they done me any favors lately? User4 (talk) 13:10, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

RE: Security backups of BoyWiki

Does there exist a complete backup anywhere of BoyWiki, including everything on BoyWiki (all pages, including talk pages, etc.)? I have a 94 Megabyte file which includes all the older edits to BoyWiki articles as of February or March of this year, but I'm not sure if the talk pages are included (it's difficult to view a 94 Megabyte file). I also have a more recent backup, perhaps from May, but only of the articles current at that time.

How often are backups made of newer BoyWiki articles?

If BoyChat should go down for some reason (if the server, the actual computer, were to stop functioning) then what would happen to BoyWiki? Are the BoyWiki files on the same server as BoyChat?

Is there any way to contact BoyWiki admin other than e-mail accounts which reside on the BoyWiki server? User4 (talk) 22:09, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm serious about the site needing a current backup. An .XML file can be exported. Then -- if necessary -- at a later date it may be re-imported into another installation of BoyWiki (I know you don't know how to do that, but that can be learned at a later time, if necessary).
Do you know how to make a site backup? If BoyWiki does not have a current one, the possibility always exists that recent edits may be lost (I have a backup of old edits, from about 3 months ago -- but I don't know if it is complete -- meaning with talk pages, etc.).
And how can someone make contact outside of the BoyWiki e-mail system? That would be necessary for editors, etc. if something went wrong. User4 (talk) 22:18, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
BoyChat needs a current backup, too. But I doubt that the Cogs realize the importance of that. User4 (talk) 22:18, 20 June 2015 (UTC)