User talk:Lysander/Archive 1

From BoyWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Hi. I'm User4

I took a look at your wiki. It looks good.

A question: Though it is good to have as many varied resources available about CL in order to "get the message out" I was wondering if there is the danger of unnecessary (and even confusing) redundancy. For example, several wikis each copying each other's material seems a bit strange to me.

What do you think?

Also, I noticed some spelling and grammatical errors on several of your wiki pages. Tor users are banned from becoming editors. Is that really such a good idea? Perhaps you need to consider supplying an e-mail contact on your wiki for signing up as an editor?

User4 03:38, 26 March 2014 (GMT)

I disabled the TorBlock extension; try it now. We had a problem with GNAA, or 4chan, or whoever, vandalizing the wiki pretty severely, in ways that took hours to clean up, so I locked it down for awhile. If vandals know what they're doing, and are determined to make a nuisance of themselves, they can wreak a lot more havoc than the run-of-the-mill spammer. But I guess we have to allow Tor access, given the nature of the site. I have it set up to require an annoying Asirra CAPTCHA on each edit, but I'll promote trusted users (e.g. you) to editor or sysop so that they don't have to deal with it.
I agree that it's bad to have all these different overlapping wikis that copy one another's content. The only solution I can think of is to have one site with a broad enough scope to encompass everything, and allows anyone who wants to edit, to edit as long as they're not disruptive. Newgon Wiki seemed promising but it's a read-only archive now. BoyWiki wasn't accepting new scribes for awhile. So, that was why I created ChildWiki.
ChildWiki is also about child liberation in general, rather than just child sexual liberation. Most people in the movement seems to acknowledge that freeing children to make their own decisions regarding non-sexual activities goes hand-in-hand with freeing them to make sexual decisions as well. One form of liberation furthers the others.
There also needs to be a wiki that covers girllove. Newgon Wiki fit that criteria, and so does ChildWiki, but BoyWiki doesn't. Lastly, the wiki needs to be supported by an organization, rather than just one person; otherwise, if that person gets hit by a bus, the wiki dies. Thus far, we don't have any wiki that meets all of these criteria. To put it as a table:
Wiki Editable? Covers both boylove and girllove? Covers child liberation topics besides child sexual liberation? Supported by an organization (rather than just one person)?
BoyWiki Yes No Somewhat Yes
Newgon Wiki No Yes Somewhat Yes
ChildWiki Yes Yes Yes No

Leucosticte 03:54, 26 March 2014 (GMT)


Thanks for all the info. I am checking out the Wikimedia user manuals. I am creating one for BoyWiki, as I'm sure you have noticed.

Re: becoming an editor on your wiki

Unfortunately, javascript can be used to discover a user's real IP address and defeat the anonymity provided by Tor. Therefore, a savvy user visiting any site which is even remotely pro-CL will never enable javascript in the Tor Browser Bundle (TBB) version of Firefox browser.

I like to think of myself as a "savvy" user, though I could be wrong about that. :- )

Oh - and stay out of the way of buses, OK? The CL cause needs all the help it can get!

User4 05:14, 26 March 2014 (GMT)

Are you saying Javascript is involved in the Asirra CAPTCHA? I briefly used QuestyCaptcha, but it's only effective against spammers and non-savvy vandals, not GNAA-grade vandals. I could do what Etenne does, and require that people shoot me an email so that I can create an account for them. I was hoping to avoid that, but I'm not sure there's any other way.
I started a discussion of some possible other countervandalism development, e.g. an extension to make it easier to revert changes. I even began work on it, but then got lazy and went with the easier solution. But maybe that won't be good enough. Leucosticte 05:23, 26 March 2014 (GMT)


Download the TBB here:

I don't know the current defaults in the latest TBB version for the included add-on which disables javascript (some versions have defaulted to "disable all javascript" and others to "javascript NOT disabled") and test your site.

It appears that your captcha uses javascript. That is the error message that I received.

User4 05:46, 26 March 2014 (GMT)


2 + 2 = 4

User4 06:36, 26 March 2014 (GMT)

It's not requiring you to pass a captcha now, though, right? Leucosticte 13:34, 26 March 2014 (GMT)

Can you send me the logo for that wiki and I will add it to it's page.--Etenne (talk) 17:21, 6 November 2014 (CET)

It's at Leucosticte (talk) 20:43, 6 November 2014 (CET)
If you start a page on cartoon porn (Japanese-style manga images and anime cartoons) etc... I would be interested in have that on BoyWiki as well... I just don't know enough about it to write it myself --Etenne (talk) 21:34, 6 November 2014 (CET)
I'm not an expert on it, and I don't think a lot of cases involving it have come before the courts. But I'm sure I'll run into some articles about it in the course of my other research, and then I'll add content pertaining to that subject. Leucosticte (talk) 21:46, 6 November 2014 (CET)

Hi! Remember when you said that changes can happen suddenly? Well, the next day, I turned on my computer and ... nothing. Hoo, boy. Well, I have things sorted out, at least temporarily. But, you know, changes can happen suddenly... Anyway, I've forgotten most of the wiki code I had learned, so I cannot format this correctly. Sorry. Anyway, yes - I would like to have the dump of your site - maybe you could upload it to (with a password?) and I can get it there. So - I hope all is well with you, and with your GF - give her my regards! I'll check back in a day or three or five or whatever... to catch your response. C'ya! User4

Did you know that my wife left me, and I have a new GF now? The split was not amicable at all, and she went back on quite a lot of her promises. Anyway, I can give you the database but it's kinda useless unless you are ready to import it into a MediaWiki installation. The link is Leucosticte (talk) 04:13, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Sorry about your troubles. We BLs don't have "wimmen" problems like you guys do. 'Course, the problems we have are probably worse!
Uh, promises are problematical... especially wimmen's promises. Be careful she doesn't set you up! She knows a little too much about you... Careful, guy...
I'm sure you saw my comment elsewhere re: the database, so I won't repeat it here. User4 (talk) 04:16, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
No, I didn't see that, if there was a new comment. Leucosticte (talk) 14:18, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Oh, I had mentioned that I cannot access Google docs without javascript enabled, which is a security risk. Is the file you uploaded in a format that can be loaded into Okawix? If so, then I might seriously look for a way to download it.
The reason I had wanted to e-mail you is now moot, with ChildWiki off-line. I was going to suggest a way to minimize a potentially very serious security problem (one which should not be mentioned here). You would be amazed at how things can unexpectedly be used to created serious legal problems - even years in the future. You know what they say, prevention is better than cure. User4 (talk) 13:06, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Please put ChildWiki up again somewhere

I find it frustrating working at BW, due to the problem of working with others who have a too-narrow understanding of complicated topics, and who are not familiar with facts in a wide area of subjects.

If you do put up CW again somewhere, please do not put it up under the Free Spirits banner. The Free Spirit organization is a committee which numbers among its members a large number of very ignorant people (at least, that is what I have noted). The problem of ignorance is what has led BoyLovers to be in the dire circumstances they find themselves in today. Education is the key - but BW does not seem to be the place for conducting a campaign to educate ChildLovers (or anyone else, for that matter).

You have seen the poor quality, inaccurate, and highly biased nature of many of the articles BW contains. Few of the past editors were competent, educated or well-informed people (and who among them is now? [sorry, a rhetorical question...]). Since the main-stream media does not give us a voice, we need a place to work which is unfettered by those with so little understanding about the world. CW could be that place. Please put it up again! User4 (talk) 04:15, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I can put it back up but I don't like to do solo projects, and my interests in the CL field have mostly narrowed to dealing with child porn policies, which seem to what are getting most of the sex offenders locked up these days. Also, the CP laws pose the greatest threat to free speech, I think. If you're going to be a consistently active editor and help fend off vandals, then I can bring ChildWiki back. But if you're not going to be able to consistently work on it, then the project will stagnate and decay, and I'll end up taking it down again rather than keeping around an archive that mostly duplicates BoyWiki and Newgon Wiki. If I take it down, I'll do the same thing I did this time, which was mothball it in case there's a possibility of bringing it back up, or in case anyone needs a copy of the content. Leucosticte (talk) 08:47, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Hmm... the problem with "child porn" is that you can't look at it. Once something is classified as "child porn" then no-one may view it to confirm that it is really porn porn, and not "porn" porn. Kinda like the thing about real rape vs "rape" rape.
That is the trick the authorities use -- when someone is on trial, no-one may see the then-labeled "porn" to contest the authorities. And with the idiotic SCOTUS decision about "lewd and lascivious" displays including clothed "children"... what to do? Well, there are things that can be done, of course. It boils down, again, to education.
1) RE: A commitment to the upkeep of CW.
I am more of an academic than a software programmer, which limits my ability to contribute. When you speak of "helping to fend off vandals," this sounds like "back-end" work, which I am (probably) currently incapable of doing (and lack the time to learn how to do).
Where is the problem with requiring editors/contributors to register by e-mail first before editing will be allowed?
2) RE: Bot edits.
BW uses a question, "How many letters does BW have?" for edits which include URLs -- why couldn't this same policy be implemented, for example, on all edits, but only for saving the edit, not for previewing it? Sure, it would be a drag for the editors, but wouldn't that eliminate 100% of the bots?
3) RE: Continuing contributions on my part.
I am dependent on a spurious Internet connection, without which I cannot connect. Should it disappear again, I would "vanish" as I did before. So promises are problematic... Of course, my last "disappearance" did allow me to complete a large number of other things I am doing, which was a boon, in a way... :-) User4 (talk) 11:24, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
BTW - I have a large collection of materials relating to "the problem of child porn". Here's one, which gives a general overview and history of the "problem," though it is not current:
And another:
They may be of some use to you, I really don't know... User4 (talk) 12:10, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
I wouldn't say that "no one" can view child porn. The police, prosecutors, judges, jurors, etc. assigned to a CP case are allowed to view it. There's no law against viewing it, just against possessing it, and the government is allowed to possess CP and other forms of contraband as evidence. There was also an article I saw awhile back that said that legislators could also probably display CP as part of, say, a presentation to a legislative committee during a debate on CP laws, and not be arrested for it. Leucosticte (talk) 13:11, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure that there's a strong enough CAPTCHA for MediaWiki right now to keep out the more determined vandals. Most wikis encounter problems with spambots; with this sort of site, vandals willing to put time into manually vandalizing become an issue. Yeah, if you might be vanishing again, then motivation to bring the site back and keep it up will probably be lacking... BoyWiki, for all its imperfections (most notably, its limited scope), has an organization behind it, which is a distinct advantage. Leucosticte (talk) 16:30, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

There must be something that I don't understand yet. If an "editor" must register to make changes, and if the BW kind of "test question" is implemented, then how can there be spam by bots or vandalization? I really don't understand.
Vandals can register and answer the test question. Leucosticte (talk) 13:08, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
OT - here's an interesting paper (the Google cached version) on "The Emerging Criminal War on Sex Offenders", which draws parallels between the war on drugs and gov. persecution of sex offenders.

User4 (talk) 00:26, 3 March 2015 (UTC)


Leucosticte when you add a template, please try to add the Documentation sup-page or at least the url of where you found the template... that would be helpful :) --Etenne (talk) 13:01, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Deletion stuff

Have you already seen this? BoyWiki:Deletion policy


The other side

Is there anyone taking the time to research the IPs of Boywiki participants? Am I stupid not to be using a proxy? Or is this just paranoia? Thanks. Linguist (talk) 11:14, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Linguist. You posted the same question elsewhere (on Etenne's talk page) and I responded there. User4 (talk) 11:28, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Name change, and the Guardian

I'm curious why you changed your user name -- was there any particular reason for doing so?

RE: Citing the Guardian

You have recently created a large number of articles based on quotes contained in one certain report in the Guardian. Do you think the Guardian is a reliable source of unbiased information? I'm not so sure that it is. User4 (talk) 11:32, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

It's so that I can go incognito. Well, the Guardian is a step up from the Daily Mail, no? Lysander (talk) 01:10, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Combining relevant articles into a single article

It's great all this hard work that you have been putting into the legal situation as it stands in various countries around the world, especially as it relates to the legality of sexual activities, but since most of the articles are very short, wouldn't it perhaps be better to combine the articles into one larger article (or more, perhaps, depending on geographical considerations)? Then, when the article(s) grow larger, portions could be "split out" as needed into smaller articles. What do you think? User4 (talk) 20:47, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I think we're going to need articles for every country eventually anyway. Yeah, we could have an article on, say, southeast Asia and then break it out later into separate articles on each country, but then we'd have to add wikilinks and such to make it properly formatted as a standalone article. So I figured, we'd just do it this way from the get-go. I was also kinda hoping people would feel inspired to add more to these articles. Lysander (talk) 20:53, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
I understand what your are saying, and I agree, but until the articles have more "meat" to them, I think visitors will be disappointed when they click a link and note the brevity of each article. They also will not see the articles in proper perspective to one another. Now that you have many of the individual articles started, how about doing an "umbrella" article (as you suggest above), and put links to each of the smaller articles for those seeking specific details on any one country? Does that sound like a good idea? User4 (talk) 21:11, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Actually, I just did a short article -- Cultural sexual imperialism‎ -- and it seems to me that your articles are related to that subject. What do you think? User4 (talk) 21:19, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Arguably, it's a deficiency in the way the wiki software is set up. It can be set up so that pages of a certain length will be bluelinked; pages under that length will have some other color; and pages that don't exist will be redlinked. So if you click on that other color, you had fair warning that it was a stub. Yeah, I think umbrella articles are good; knock yourself out. There could also be some sort of navigation template put at the bottom of the articles. Lysander (talk) 21:24, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
I notice that you have repeated in almost all of the newer articles you have created recently quite a few misleading statements which have been fed to the BBC and the Guardian by law-enforcement officials and NGOs (for their own nefarious purposes) which you have gleaned from standard (biased) media reporting, the exact same thing that the general public does. Don't you think that it would be better to present less biased information in the articles? It almost seems like you may wish to deliberately perpetuate the very myths which the public already accepts without question -- the "received wisdom" -- by parroting these kinds of false and misleading statements on BW -- rather than working to dispel those myths. Do you really think that that is the best thing for us to be doing here at BW? User4 (talk) 22:24, 10 March 2015 (UTC)


When you get around to doing the article, you may want to take a look at this:

... which discusses UN human rights conventions, and the lack of human rights with regards to the street children in Sao Paulo. User4 (talk) 17:44, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
You read the article already, so you may as well write the Brazil stub. All you have to do is copy the first few sentences of the Wikipedia article, and then summarize the article you just cited above. Look, I even did the first part for you. Lysander (talk) 18:10, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Uh, I may sound like I'm just making excuses, but I actually am very very very very busy with so many things right now... I like to do a good job when I start something, and I really don't have time for that article right now. Really. I'm very sorry :-( User4 (talk) 18:27, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Hopefully eventually your conscience and white guilt will eat at you to the point that you readjust/rearrange your priorities. And when you dream I hope you can't sleep and you SCREAM about it. Lysander (talk) 18:32, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
If I readjusted my priorities in the order that they should be, then I would have to stop my work here altogether. I am working on many much more important projects, ones that are only partially completed and awaiting my attention. Would you like to see a (long) list? I think you would be amazed... User4 (talk) 18:38, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Ooh, now you've piqued my curiosity. Lysander (talk) 19:02, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
I'll have to get back to you later on this -- gotta go out and run some errands. C'ya soon... User4 (talk) 19:05, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
OK - I'm back. Well, to maintain plausible deniability (so as not to handicap future potential activities), I'll limit myself to saying that there are some very important BL materials which currently are in formats which make then difficult to access or to make good use of: I am currently in the process of changing the formats to eliminate those problems. And the number of examples of these kinds of materials I am in the middle of working on is in the dozens. Those materials, when completed, would probably have a much greater overall impact on the public's understanding of the BL situation than working on BW, fixing/creating a few articles. Does what I have explained make any sense to you? User4 (talk) 22:03, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
  • ------------------------
  • Copied here from Etenne's talk page:
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")
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)
  • ------------------------
  • Copied here from Etenne's talk page:

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)
Well, I have a shitload of stuff on all that! No joke! The problem is, I wouldn't know where to begin. And, in the past, when I have posted links to good stuff for you, there has been absolutely no response from you, which is one of the best ways to discourage me from investing any more time in that kind of thing, if you know what I mean... User4 (talk) 19:15, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Good point, you get better results if you name drop or something, and let me do the research myself, rather than citing specific studies, unless you happen to have a URL handy. Lysander (talk) 19:20, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
If I name drop? See, the problem is that there is a lot of good stuff available, but finding it is next to impossible (without extraordinary googling skills). Sure, I can drop some names, but finding the articles is still extremely difficult.
Here's some names I'll drop: Constantine, Lautman, Brongersma, Jannsen, Rubin, Plummer, Percy, Yung, Rodriguez, Mitzel, Reeves, Adler, Califia, Rind, Baurmann, Bauserman, Bernard...
Look, here's a better listing:
... and then check the other alphabetical listings there. OK? Enough? User4 (talk) 21:32, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Feminism - I responded to a comment of yours

here: User4 (talk) 21:45, 11 March 2015 (UTC)


Could come up with a subcategory for your entries on sex tourism. Category encyclopedia is getting to big and it needs to be divided up. --Etenne (talk) 07:40, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I know I am a bother but could you please indicate to me what subcategory name you would like for your recent articles then we can also add them to other subcategories where relevant.... category encyclopedia is starting to overflow and I want to start to clean it up and organize a bit

--Etenne (talk) 13:32, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

encyclopedia (also encyclopaedia)
n noun a book or set of books giving information on many subjects or on many aspects of one subject, typically arranged alphabetically.

C16: modern Latin, from pseudo-Greek enkuklopaideia for enkuklios paideia 'all-round education'.


An encyclopedia or encyclopaedia (also spelled encyclopædia, see spelling differences)[1] is a type of reference work or compendium holding a comprehensive summary of information from either all branches of knowledge or a particular branch of knowledge.[2] Encyclopedias are divided into articles or entries, which are usually accessed alphabetically by article name.[3] Encyclopedia entries are longer and more detailed than those in most dictionaries.[3] Generally speaking, unlike dictionary entries, which focus on linguistic information about words, encyclopedia articles focus on factual information to cover the thing or concept for which the article name stands.[4][5][6][7]

Encyclopedias have existed for around 2,000 years; the oldest still in existence, Naturalis Historia, was written in ca. AD 77 by Pliny the Elder. The modern encyclopedia evolved out of dictionaries around the 17th century. Historically, some encyclopedias were contained in one volume, whereas others, such as the Encyclopædia Britannica, the Enciclopedia Italiana (62 volumes, 56,000 pages) or the world's largest, Enciclopedia universal ilustrada europeo-americana (118 volumes, 105,000 pages), became huge multi-volume works. Some modern encyclopedias, such as Wikipedia, are electronic and often freely available. ... Characteristics

The modern encyclopedia was developed from the <a href="/wiki/Dictionary" title="Dictionary">dictionary</a> in the 18th century. Historically, both encyclopedias and dictionaries have been researched and written by well-educated, well-informed content <a href="/wiki/Expert" title="Expert">experts</a>, but they are significantly different in structure. A dictionary is a linguistic work which primarily focuses on alphabetical listing of <a href="/wiki/Words" title="Words" class="mw-redirect">words</a> and their <a href="/wiki/Definitions" title="Definitions" class="mw-redirect">definitions</a>. <a href="/wiki/Synonym" title="Synonym">Synonymous</a> words and those related by the subject matter are < be found scattered around the dictionary, giving no obvious place for in-depth treatment. Thus, a dictionary typically provides limited <a href="/wiki/Information" title="Information">information</a>, <a href="//" class="extiw" title="wikt:Analysis">analysis</a> or background for the word defined. While it may offer a definition, it may leave the reader lacking in <a href="/wiki/Understanding" title="Understanding">understanding</a> the meaning, significance or limitations of a <a href="/wiki/Term_(language)" title="Term (language)" class="mw-redirect">term</a>, and how the term relates to a broader field of knowledge. An encyclopedia is, allegedly, not written in order to convince, although one of its goals is indeed to convince its reader about its own veracity. In the terms of <a href="/wiki/Aristotle" title="Aristotle">Aristotle</a>'s <a href="/wiki/Modes_of_persuasion" title="Modes of persuasion">Modes of persuasion</a>, a dictionary should persuade the reader through <a href="/wiki/Logos" title="Logos">logos</a> (conveying only appropriate emotions); it will be expected to have a lack of <a href="/wiki/Pathos" title="Pathos">pathos</a> (it should not stir up irrelevant emotions), and to have little <a href="/wiki/Ethos" title="Ethos">ethos</a> except that of the dictionary itself.

To address those needs, an encyclopedia article is typically not limited to simple definitions, and is not limited to defining an individual word, but provides a more extensive meaning for a subject or <a href="/wiki/List_of_academic_disciplines" title="List of academic disciplines" class="mw-redirect">discipline</a>. In addition to defining and listing synonymous terms for the topic, the article is able to treat the topic's more extensive meaning in more depth and convey the most relevant accumulated knowledge on that subject. An encyclopedia article also often includes many <a href="/wiki/Map" title="Map">maps</a> and <a href="/wiki/Illustration" title="Illustration">illustrations</a>, as well as <a href="/wiki/Bibliography" title="Bibliography">bibliography</a> and <a href="/wiki/Statistics" title="Statistics">statistics</a>.

Four major elements define an encyclopedia: its subject matter, its scope, its method of organization, and its method of production:</p>

  • Encyclopedias can be general, containing articles on topics in every field (the English-language Encyclopædia Britannica and German <a href="/wiki/Brockhaus_Enzyklop%C3%A4die" title="Brockhaus Enzyklopädie">Brockhaus</a> are well-known examples). General encyclopedias often contain guides on how to do a variety of things, as well as embedded dictionaries and <a href="/wiki/Gazetteer" title="Gazetteer">gazetteers</a>.[<a href="/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed" title="Wikipedia:Citation needed">citation needed</a>] There are also encyclopedias that cover a wide variety of topics but from a particular cultural, ethnic, or national perspective, such as the <a href="/wiki/Great_Soviet_Encyclopedia" title="Great Soviet Encyclopedia">Great Soviet Encyclopedia</a> or <a href="/wiki/Encyclopaedia_Judaica" title="Encyclopaedia Judaica">Encyclopaedia Judaica</a>.
  • Works of encyclopedic scope aim to convey the important accumulated knowledge for their subject domain, such as an encyclopedia of <a href="/wiki/Medicine" title="Medicine">medicine</a>, <a href="/wiki/Philosophy" title="Philosophy">philosophy</a>, or <a href="/wiki/Law" title="Law">law</a>. Works vary in the breadth of material and the depth of discussion, depending on the <a href="/wiki/Target_audience" title="Target audience">target audience</a>. (For example, the <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="">Medical encyclopedia</a> produced by A.D.A.M., Inc. for the U.S. <a href="/wiki/National_Institutes_of_Health" title="National Institutes of Health">National Institutes of Health</a>.)
  • Some systematic method of organization is essential to making an encyclopedia usable as a work of reference. There have historically been two main methods of organizing printed encyclopedias: the <a href="/wiki/Alphabetical_order" title="Alphabetical order">alphabetical</a> method (consisting of a number of separate articles, organized in alphabetical order), or organization by <a href="/wiki/Hierarchy" title="Hierarchy">hierarchical</a> categories. The former method is today the most common by far, especially for general works. The fluidity of electronic media, however, allows new possibilities for multiple methods of organization of the same content. Further, electronic media offer previously unimaginable capabilities for search, <a href="/wiki/Subject_indexing" title="Subject indexing">indexing</a> and <a href="/wiki/Cross_reference" title="Cross reference" class="mw-redirect">cross reference</a>. The <a href="/wiki/Epigraph_(literature)" title="Epigraph (literature)">epigraph</a> from <a href="/wiki/Horace" title="Horace">Horace</a> on the title page of the 18th century Encyclopédie suggests the importance of the structure of an encyclopedia: "What grace may be added to commonplace matters by the power of order and connection."
  • As modern multimedia and the information age have evolved, they have had an ever-increasing effect on the collection, verification, summation, and presentation of information of all kinds. Projects such as <a href="/wiki/Everything2" title="Everything2">Everything2</a>, <a href="/wiki/Encarta" title="Encarta">Encarta</a>, <a href="/wiki/H2g2" title="H2g2">h2g2</a>, and Wikipedia are examples of new forms of the encyclopedia as <a href="/wiki/Information_retrieval" title="Information retrieval">information retrieval</a> becomes simpler. The method of production for an encyclopedia historically has been supported in both for-profit and non-profit contexts. The <a href="/wiki/Great_Soviet_Encyclopedia" title="Great Soviet Encyclopedia">Great Soviet Encyclopedia</a> mentioned above was entirely state sponsored, while the Britannica was supported as a for-profit institution. By comparison, <a href="/wiki/Wikipedia" title="Wikipedia">Wikipedia</a> is supported by volunteers contributing in a non-profit environment under the organization of the <a href="/wiki/Wikimedia" title="Wikimedia" class="mw-redirect">Wikimedia</a> Foundation.

Some works entitled "dictionaries" are actually similar to encyclopedias, especially those concerned with a particular field (such as the <a href="/wiki/Dictionary_of_the_Middle_Ages" title="Dictionary of the Middle Ages">Dictionary of the Middle Ages</a>, the <a href="/wiki/Dictionary_of_American_Naval_Fighting_Ships" title="Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships">Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships</a>, and <a href="/wiki/Black%27s_Law_Dictionary" title="Black's Law Dictionary">Black's Law Dictionary</a>). The <a href="/wiki/Macquarie_Dictionary" title="Macquarie Dictionary">Macquarie Dictionary</a>, Australia's national dictionary, became an <a href="/wiki/Encyclopedic_dictionary" title="Encyclopedic dictionary">encyclopedic dictionary</a> after its first edition in recognition of the use of proper nouns in common communication, and the words derived from such proper nouns. There are some broad differences between encyclopedias and dictionaries. Most noticeably, encyclopedia articles are longer, fuller and more thorough than entries in most general-purpose dictionaries.<a href="#cite_note-DOLencyclopedia-3">[3]</a><a href="#cite_note-DOLencyclopedicdefinition-17">[17]</a> There are differences in content as well. Generally speaking, dictionaries provide <a href="/wiki/Linguistics" title="Linguistics">linguistic</a> information about words themselves, while encyclopedias focus more on the thing for which those words stand.<a href="#cite_note-bejoint-4">[4]</a><a href="#cite_note-EB-5">[5]</a><a href="#cite_note-DOLei-6">[6]</a><a href="#cite_note-OHEL22-7">[7]</a> Thus, while dictionary entries are inextricably fixed to the word described, encyclopedia articles can be given a different entry name. As such, dictionary entries are not fully translatable into other languages, but encyclopedia articles can be.<a href="#cite_note-bejoint-4">[4]</a> In practice, however, the distinction is not concrete, as there is no clear-cut difference between factual, "encyclopedic" information and linguistic information such as appears in dictionaries.<a href="#cite_note-DOLei-6">[6]</a><a href="#cite_note-DOLencyclopedicdefinition-17">[17]</a><a href="#cite_note-Bejoint31-18">[18]</a> Thus encyclopedias may contain material that is also found in dictionaries, and vice versa.<a href="#cite_note-Bejoint31-18">[18]</a> In particular, dictionary entries often contain factual information about the thing named by the word.<a href="#cite_note-DOLencyclopedicdefinition-17">[17]</a><a href="#cite_note-Bejoint31-18">[18] </blockquote>

An encyclopedia is supposed to contain a lot of articles, arranged alphabetically - that is the whole purpose - everything is supposed to be there -- in one place-- for easy browsing and reference! User4 (talk) 08:14, 12 March 2015 (UTC)


What I would like to know is how much time you are willing to put into working on BoyWiki. I have some big plans for the future and I could use your skills as a wiki page designer and managing new users for my new projects (if I can get them to come) --Etenne (talk) 16:23, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm willing to put a lot of time into it. I'm more of a developer and system administrator than a designer, though. Lysander (talk) 17:25, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
OK cool, I will be talking to you about what I need in a few... I just need to makes some more plans but if you want some idea of where I am going, see the new section on my user page Etenne--Etenne (talk) 17:35, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm wondering, can any plans be come up with that will accommodate girllovers? I notice, for instance, that in doing some of my research for BoyWiki articles, I run into material relevant to girllove, but I can't put it here because it's not on-topic. It seems like a waste, because there's nowhere else to put it either, and I don't want to create a separate wiki just for GL stuff, which is inevitably going to overlap with BoyWiki (for example, a GL wiki would have to have articles for all the countries, laws, international organizations, etc. too, and duplicate much of BoyWiki's content on those topics).
If a joint BL-GL resource is created, will the two groups be able to get along? I wonder what caused Newgon Wiki's decline and fall.. was the organization behind it weak, and if so, why? Thanks, Lysander (talk) 17:40, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
I misunderstood the question at first, as to Newgon Wiki from what I understand the owner of that site just gave up because he could not get users. As to a new joint venture, my opinion is; I do not think it would go so well as BL tend to be allergic to GL's. That does not mean that in some cases some people might get along but that is true as a general rule. --Etenne (talk) 18:09, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Also re:Newgon Wiki. I bet you could take over that site if you wanted. I am guessing if you write the host and pay the server costs... and explain what your ideas are.... they would let you take over. --Etenne (talk) 18:18, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
"Allergic"; that's a good word for it, I guess. Well, I guess it's more important to accommodate BLs because they are the ones who have historically been able to get organized and stay organized better. Vlad Draconis PenDragon writes, "Xenophobia extended toward hemosexuality has battle-hardened homosexuals and prepared them to stand in defense of one another. The girl-lovers and heterosexuals haven't been persecuted nearly as long so they as a community haven't developed that defensive and fraternistic sense that the homosexual community has. I think it's fair to say boy-lovers are supported more by the homosexual community than girl-lovers are by heterosexuals."
To revive Newgon Wiki, basically it would be necessary to do what you did at BoyWiki, which is indefatigably continue editing the site as a one-man army until other people decide to show up. When newcomers look at Special:RecentChanges and see little or no activity, they tend to think "oh, this is a dead wiki" and go away. It can take months or years before other active editors arrive, and there will sometimes be setbacks in which people leave and it goes back to being an army of one again. I just find it hard to keep my morale up for very long when I'm the only editor. It can also be demoralizing when you take a stand for free speech and all the users head for the exit because they don't want free speech; they want an echo chamber for their views. Lysander (talk) 18:28, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Deleted or heavily changed Wikipedia articles

I haven't done that research yet. There's Project:Articles for deletion/Adult-child sex (2nd nomination). Lysander (talk) 03:19, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I think blocking them from viewing the history might be a violation of the license. But yeah, it's possible to block them from accessing special pages. Lysander (talk) 19:33, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

User space

can you tell me how to access my userspace? Where my deleted article is. Thanks.