BoyWiki:Agora/4 May 2016 - Revision history

Meco: fixing date header

2016-05-17T20:13:12Z

fixing date header

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:13, 17 May 2016
Line 1:		Line 1:
			=[[BoyWiki:Agora/4 May 2016\|4 May 2016]]=
	== A note on "citations" and "references" ==		== A note on "citations" and "references" ==

User4: /* Additional explanations about how Categories work--and why Categories exist--on a wiki. */ new section

2016-05-04T21:23:48Z

Additional explanations about how Categories work--and why Categories exist--on a wiki.: new section

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:23, 4 May 2016
Line 57:		Line 57:
	:		:
	:::'''''I''''' honestly do not know how to explain to '''''you''''' the absurdity of anyone, especially one who is the editor of a wiki--and is involved in personally editing and classifying the articles as well, and one who states that he wishes the articles to be ''academic'' in nature, making the following statement, ''"I honestly do not know how to explain to you that personal antidotes and personal expirance does not constitute an encyclopedic article."'' [[User:User4\|User4]] ([[User talk:User4\|talk]]) 19:56, 4 May 2016 (UTC)		:::'''''I''''' honestly do not know how to explain to '''''you''''' the absurdity of anyone, especially one who is the editor of a wiki--and is involved in personally editing and classifying the articles as well, and one who states that he wishes the articles to be ''academic'' in nature, making the following statement, ''"I honestly do not know how to explain to you that personal antidotes and personal expirance does not constitute an encyclopedic article."'' [[User:User4\|User4]] ([[User talk:User4\|talk]]) 19:56, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

			== Additional explanations about how Categories work--and why Categories exist--on a wiki. ==

			This is an extract from a discussion found at [[Category talk:Newspapers and magazines]].

			::A newspaper ''is'' a periodical. Therefore links to all articles about newspapers belong in the main category "Periodicals". This is for the convenience of someone who is interested in ''all types'' of periodicals, whether newspapers or magazines.

			::Newspaper articles should ''also'' be included in a ''sub''category "Newspapers", and this is for the convenience of those who are ''exclusively interested'' in ''newspapers'' articles.

			::A magazine ''is'' a periodical, too. Therefore links to all articles about ''magazines'' belong in the main category "Periodicals". This is for the convenience of someone who is interested in ''all types'' of periodicals, newspapers as well as magazines.

			::Magazine articles should ''also'' be included in a ''sub''category "Magazines". This is for the convenience of those who are ''exclusively interested'' in ''magazines.''

			::Therefore, within the ''sub''categories "Newpapers" and "Magazines," each relevant articles displays ''another'' link.

			::This is a system of redundancy, which allows someone to ''avoid'' all links to ''newspapers'' by going directly to the "Magazine" category, if he wishes.

			::And this allows someone to ''avoid'' all links to ''magazines'' by going directly to the "Newpaper" category, if he wishes.

			::Do you not understand how this system works? ''For the convenience of the reader,'' you include one main category, which contains ''links to all newspaper and magazine articles''.

			::'''''Then, for the convenience of a smaller group of readers, who have more specific interests, you include subcategories containing duplicate links to only that relevant content.'''''

			::It is a ''filtration'' system, which filters out certain content ''based on the interests of the readers.''
			:
			::I'm sure that you will be able to see the logic involved if you just ''think about it'' for a while... [[User:User4\|User4]] ([[User talk:User4\|talk]]) 20:47, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

			<End of extract.> [[User:User4\|User4]] ([[User talk:User4\|talk]]) 21:23, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

User4 at 19:56, 4 May 2016

2016-05-04T19:56:27Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:56, 4 May 2016
Line 55:		Line 55:
	::See, there is ''not'' just ''one correct category'' for each article. There can be ''many correct categories'' for each article. '''''The inclusion of ''categories'' is so that the interests of ''the reader'' are accommodated.''''' It is ''not'' about "putting things in the one right category". Don't you see what I am saying? Haven't you looked at how ''other wikis'' categorize articles? [[User:User4\|User4]] ([[User talk:User4\|talk]]) 18:40, 4 May 2016 (UTC)</blockquote>		::See, there is ''not'' just ''one correct category'' for each article. There can be ''many correct categories'' for each article. '''''The inclusion of ''categories'' is so that the interests of ''the reader'' are accommodated.''''' It is ''not'' about "putting things in the one right category". Don't you see what I am saying? Haven't you looked at how ''other wikis'' categorize articles? [[User:User4\|User4]] ([[User talk:User4\|talk]]) 18:40, 4 May 2016 (UTC)</blockquote>
	::I honestly do not know how to explain to you that personal antidotes and personal expirance does not constitute an encyclopedic article. Technical writing is different from creative writing. I have chosen not to disallow this type of writing altogether as Wikipedia and the French BoyWiki has done because I feel it has a place under [[:Category:Life]] and to a lessor extent under [[:Category:Entertainment]], which I believe was also the original intentions of the creators of BoyWiki.--[[Etenne]] [[File:BLSmileyface.png\|50 px\|link=Etenne]] 19:15, 4 May 2016 (UTC)		::I honestly do not know how to explain to you that personal antidotes and personal expirance does not constitute an encyclopedic article. Technical writing is different from creative writing. I have chosen not to disallow this type of writing altogether as Wikipedia and the French BoyWiki has done because I feel it has a place under [[:Category:Life]] and to a lessor extent under [[:Category:Entertainment]], which I believe was also the original intentions of the creators of BoyWiki.--[[Etenne]] [[File:BLSmileyface.png\|50 px\|link=Etenne]] 19:15, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
			:
			:::'''''I''''' honestly do not know how to explain to '''''you''''' the absurdity of anyone, especially one who is the editor of a wiki--and is involved in personally editing and classifying the articles as well, and one who states that he wishes the articles to be ''academic'' in nature, making the following statement, ''"I honestly do not know how to explain to you that personal antidotes and personal expirance does not constitute an encyclopedic article."'' [[User:User4\|User4]] ([[User talk:User4\|talk]]) 19:56, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Etenne at 19:15, 4 May 2016

2016-05-04T19:15:38Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:15, 4 May 2016
Line 54:		Line 54:

	::See, there is ''not'' just ''one correct category'' for each article. There can be ''many correct categories'' for each article. '''''The inclusion of ''categories'' is so that the interests of ''the reader'' are accommodated.''''' It is ''not'' about "putting things in the one right category". Don't you see what I am saying? Haven't you looked at how ''other wikis'' categorize articles? [[User:User4\|User4]] ([[User talk:User4\|talk]]) 18:40, 4 May 2016 (UTC)</blockquote>		::See, there is ''not'' just ''one correct category'' for each article. There can be ''many correct categories'' for each article. '''''The inclusion of ''categories'' is so that the interests of ''the reader'' are accommodated.''''' It is ''not'' about "putting things in the one right category". Don't you see what I am saying? Haven't you looked at how ''other wikis'' categorize articles? [[User:User4\|User4]] ([[User talk:User4\|talk]]) 18:40, 4 May 2016 (UTC)</blockquote>
	::I honestly do not know how to explain to you that personal antidotes and personal expirance does not constitute ~~and~~ encyclopedic article. Technical writing is different from creative writing. I have chosen not to disallow this type of writing altogether as Wikipedia and the French BoyWiki has done because I feel it has a place under [[:Category:Life]] and to a lessor extent under [[:Category:Entertainment]], which I believe was also the original intentions of the creators of BoyWiki.--[[Etenne]] [[File:BLSmileyface.png\|50 px\|link=Etenne]] 19:15, 4 May 2016 (UTC)		::I honestly do not know how to explain to you that personal antidotes and personal expirance does not constitute an encyclopedic article. Technical writing is different from creative writing. I have chosen not to disallow this type of writing altogether as Wikipedia and the French BoyWiki has done because I feel it has a place under [[:Category:Life]] and to a lessor extent under [[:Category:Entertainment]], which I believe was also the original intentions of the creators of BoyWiki.--[[Etenne]] [[File:BLSmileyface.png\|50 px\|link=Etenne]] 19:15, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Etenne at 19:15, 4 May 2016

2016-05-04T19:15:08Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:15, 4 May 2016
Line 54:		Line 54:

	::See, there is ''not'' just ''one correct category'' for each article. There can be ''many correct categories'' for each article. '''''The inclusion of ''categories'' is so that the interests of ''the reader'' are accommodated.''''' It is ''not'' about "putting things in the one right category". Don't you see what I am saying? Haven't you looked at how ''other wikis'' categorize articles? [[User:User4\|User4]] ([[User talk:User4\|talk]]) 18:40, 4 May 2016 (UTC)</blockquote>		::See, there is ''not'' just ''one correct category'' for each article. There can be ''many correct categories'' for each article. '''''The inclusion of ''categories'' is so that the interests of ''the reader'' are accommodated.''''' It is ''not'' about "putting things in the one right category". Don't you see what I am saying? Haven't you looked at how ''other wikis'' categorize articles? [[User:User4\|User4]] ([[User talk:User4\|talk]]) 18:40, 4 May 2016 (UTC)</blockquote>
			::I honestly do not know how to explain to you that personal antidotes and personal expirance does not constitute and encyclopedic article. Technical writing is different from creative writing. I have chosen not to disallow this type of writing altogether as Wikipedia and the French BoyWiki has done because I feel it has a place under [[:Category:Life]] and to a lessor extent under [[:Category:Entertainment]], which I believe was also the original intentions of the creators of BoyWiki.--[[Etenne]] [[File:BLSmileyface.png\|50 px\|link=Etenne]] 19:15, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

User4: /* A controversy about categorization of BoyWiki articles */

2016-05-04T18:51:57Z

A controversy about categorization of BoyWiki articles

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:51, 4 May 2016
Line 51:		Line 51:
	:::Is the article about the ''personal experiences'' of one particular BoyLover? Yes, absolutely. So...<nowiki>[[Category:Personal experiences]]</nowiki>		:::Is the article about the ''personal experiences'' of one particular BoyLover? Yes, absolutely. So...<nowiki>[[Category:Personal experiences]]</nowiki>

	::But stop a moment, and ask yourself this: If someone is interested in ''strange things'' about the ''laws'' regarding BoyLove, or about how ''psychologists'' view ''BoyLovers,'' or about how ''BoyLover sexuality'' is viewed by ''society,'' they are '''''not''''' likely to go to the Personal experiences category to find those things, are they? Tell the truth--is that category that '''''you''''' would go to, to find those things?		::But stop a moment, and ask yourself this: If someone is interested in ''strange things'' about the ''laws'' regarding BoyLove, or about how ''psychologists'' view ''BoyLovers,'' or about how ''BoyLover sexuality'' is viewed by ''society,'' they are '''''not''''' likely to go to the Personal experiences category to find those things, are they? Tell the truth--is that the category that '''''you''''' would go to, to find those things?

	::See, there is ''not'' just ''one correct category'' for each article. There can be ''many correct categories'' for each article. '''''The inclusion of ''categories'' is so that the interests of ''the reader'' are accommodated.''''' It is ''not'' about "putting things in the one right category". Don't you see what I am saying? Haven't you looked at how ''other wikis'' categorize articles? [[User:User4\|User4]] ([[User talk:User4\|talk]]) 18:40, 4 May 2016 (UTC)</blockquote>		::See, there is ''not'' just ''one correct category'' for each article. There can be ''many correct categories'' for each article. '''''The inclusion of ''categories'' is so that the interests of ''the reader'' are accommodated.''''' It is ''not'' about "putting things in the one right category". Don't you see what I am saying? Haven't you looked at how ''other wikis'' categorize articles? [[User:User4\|User4]] ([[User talk:User4\|talk]]) 18:40, 4 May 2016 (UTC)</blockquote>

User4: /* A controversy about categorization of BoyWiki articles */ new section

2016-05-04T18:49:42Z

A controversy about categorization of BoyWiki articles: new section

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:49, 4 May 2016
Line 30:		Line 30:

	{{reflist}}::Now, I didn't ''have'' to give a reference here--it is just a ''courtesy'' to the reader, in case he wants to see the context of my words. Without the reference, he can just assume that, yes, indeed, some conversation took place somewhere on a Talk page which involved something that Enochian said. Giving the reference ''does not'' make my statements more "truthful" or "accurate" etc. [[User:User4\|User4]] ([[User talk:User4\|talk]]) 01:27, 4 May 2016 (UTC)		{{reflist}}::Now, I didn't ''have'' to give a reference here--it is just a ''courtesy'' to the reader, in case he wants to see the context of my words. Without the reference, he can just assume that, yes, indeed, some conversation took place somewhere on a Talk page which involved something that Enochian said. Giving the reference ''does not'' make my statements more "truthful" or "accurate" etc. [[User:User4\|User4]] ([[User talk:User4\|talk]]) 01:27, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

			== A controversy about categorization of BoyWiki articles ==

			This is from the [[Talk:Rape_rape_vs._"rape"_rape]] page of the article [[Rape_rape_vs._"rape"_rape]] but as it is highly relevant to BoyWiki policy, I am including it here so that others may examine the arguments contained in it as well.

			<blockquote>[Etenne's comment] This is an personal experience/editorial entry based on personal opinion and does not belong in Category Encyclopedia. [[Help:Encyclopedia\|Encyclopedia articles]] are '''factual articles''' written with the goal of preserving knowledge and elucidating ideas pertaining to boylove. --[[Etenne]] [[File:BLSmileyface.png\|50 px\|link=Etenne]] 14:26, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
			:
			::Uh, I'm kind of confused now...

			::For example, if somebody is interested in finding out the strange things about the ''laws'' regarding BoyLove, they are likely to go to the Law category, aren't they?
			:::Is the article about the strange things about how the law applies to BoyLovers? Yes, absolutely. So...<nowiki>[[Category:Law]]</nowiki>

			::For example, if somebody is interested in finding out about the strange ways that ''psychologists'' view BoyLove, they are likely to go to the Psychology category, aren't they?
			:::Is the article about the ''strange ways'' that psychologists view BoyLove? Yes, absolutely. So...<nowiki>[[Category:Psychology]]</nowiki>

			::For example, if somebody is interested in ''curious things'' about how BoyLove ''sexuality'' is viewed by society, they are likely to go to the Sexuality category, aren't they?
			:::Is the article about BoyLove sexuality? Yes, absolutely. So...<nowiki>[[Category:Sexuality]]</nowiki>

			::For example, if somebody is interested in reading about the personal experiences of BoyLovers, they are likely to go to the Personal experiences category, aren't they?
			:::Is the article about the ''personal experiences'' of one particular BoyLover? Yes, absolutely. So...<nowiki>[[Category:Personal experiences]]</nowiki>

			::But stop a moment, and ask yourself this: If someone is interested in ''strange things'' about the ''laws'' regarding BoyLove, or about how ''psychologists'' view ''BoyLovers,'' or about how ''BoyLover sexuality'' is viewed by ''society,'' they are '''''not''''' likely to go to the Personal experiences category to find those things, are they? Tell the truth--is that category that '''''you''''' would go to, to find those things?

			::See, there is ''not'' just ''one correct category'' for each article. There can be ''many correct categories'' for each article. '''''The inclusion of ''categories'' is so that the interests of ''the reader'' are accommodated.''''' It is ''not'' about "putting things in the one right category". Don't you see what I am saying? Haven't you looked at how ''other wikis'' categorize articles? [[User:User4\|User4]] ([[User talk:User4\|talk]]) 18:40, 4 May 2016 (UTC)</blockquote>

User4: /* A note on "citations" and "references" */

2016-05-04T01:57:41Z

A note on "citations" and "references"

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:57, 4 May 2016
Line 15:		Line 15:
	* "Two plus two is not always four".		* "Two plus two is not always four".

	That is an absolutely true statement. Now, if a reader is ''smart'', he can figure out ''why'' that statement is true. If the reader is ''not'' smart, he may have problems with accepting the validity of that statement. As a ''courtesy'' (''not'' as a ''necessity'') I may include a reference to something that explains the nature of what occurs when combining cups of different types of fluids, or when combining cups of finely grained substances with more coarsely grained substances, but I don't ''have'' to give such a "reference" or "citation". My statement is ''just as true'', with or without giving any references. It is up to the ''reader'' to decide whether to accept my statement as "fact" or not. Yes, giving "references" or "citations" is nice, but not ''necessary'' for my claims (however outlandish they may seem to an uninformed person) to be ''absolutely true''!		That is an absolutely true statement. Now, if a reader is ''smart'', he can figure out ''why'' that statement is true. If the reader is ''not'' smart, he may have problems with accepting the validity of that statement. As a ''courtesy'' (''not'' as a ''necessity'') I may include a reference to something that explains the nature of what occurs when combining cups of different types of fluids, or when combining cups of finely grained substances with more coarsely grained substances, but I don't ''have'' to give such a "reference" or "citation".
			:Example of how "2+2 ''does not'' always equal 4":
			:*"Two cups of water combined with two cups of alcohol ''does not'' give four cups of liquid. Two cups of marbles combined with two cups of sand ''does not'' give four cups of solid material," etc. etc.

			My statement is ''just as true'', with or without giving any references. It is up to the ''reader'' to decide whether to accept my statement as "fact" or not. Yes, giving "references" or "citations" is nice, but not ''necessary'' for my claims (however outlandish they may seem to an uninformed person) to be ''absolutely true''!

	References may ''appear'' to make something ''seem'' more "authoritative" but, in fact, academics play all kinds of games with citations. For example, they often cite other articles or studies which ''they have never even read'', they quote "statements" which ''do not' appear in the cited source'', they may add dozens of citations just to improve the "visibility" or "rating" of their article relative to ''other'' articles in scientific journals, they include citations to articles in other ''non''-peer-reviewed journals (which makes the reliability of the information more questionable), etc. etc.		References may ''appear'' to make something ''seem'' more "authoritative" but, in fact, academics play all kinds of games with citations. For example, they often cite other articles or studies which ''they have never even read'', they quote "statements" which ''do not' appear in the cited source'', they may add dozens of citations just to improve the "visibility" or "rating" of their article relative to ''other'' articles in scientific journals, they include citations to articles in other ''non''-peer-reviewed journals (which makes the reliability of the information more questionable), etc. etc.

User4: /* A note on "citations" and "references" */

2016-05-04T01:45:46Z

A note on "citations" and "references"

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:45, 4 May 2016
Line 17:		Line 17:
	That is an absolutely true statement. Now, if a reader is ''smart'', he can figure out ''why'' that statement is true. If the reader is ''not'' smart, he may have problems with accepting the validity of that statement. As a ''courtesy'' (''not'' as a ''necessity'') I may include a reference to something that explains the nature of what occurs when combining cups of different types of fluids, or when combining cups of finely grained substances with more coarsely grained substances, but I don't ''have'' to give such a "reference" or "citation". My statement is ''just as true'', with or without giving any references. It is up to the ''reader'' to decide whether to accept my statement as "fact" or not. Yes, giving "references" or "citations" is nice, but not ''necessary'' for my claims (however outlandish they may seem to an uninformed person) to be ''absolutely true''!		That is an absolutely true statement. Now, if a reader is ''smart'', he can figure out ''why'' that statement is true. If the reader is ''not'' smart, he may have problems with accepting the validity of that statement. As a ''courtesy'' (''not'' as a ''necessity'') I may include a reference to something that explains the nature of what occurs when combining cups of different types of fluids, or when combining cups of finely grained substances with more coarsely grained substances, but I don't ''have'' to give such a "reference" or "citation". My statement is ''just as true'', with or without giving any references. It is up to the ''reader'' to decide whether to accept my statement as "fact" or not. Yes, giving "references" or "citations" is nice, but not ''necessary'' for my claims (however outlandish they may seem to an uninformed person) to be ''absolutely true''!

	(~~This~~ is from a Talk page, but I believe a record of this should exist elsewhere, as well.)		References may ''appear'' to make something ''seem'' more "authoritative" but, in fact, academics play all kinds of games with citations. For example, they often cite other articles or studies which ''they have never even read'', they quote "statements" which ''do not' appear in the cited source'', they may add dozens of citations just to improve the "visibility" or "rating" of their article relative to ''other'' articles in scientific journals, they include citations to articles in other ''non''-peer-reviewed journals (which makes the reliability of the information more questionable), etc. etc.

			I have an article from a respected journal which did a study on citations in journals, and which goes into these problems with citations in great detail. I have ''not'' included a reference to the article here. Do you ''have to have'' the reference to that article in order to believe what I said above? No. You could just ''accept my authority'' when I make such statements. Or you can reject my statements, '''''just as you could reject any statements made in any journal article that I cited to support my statements here!'''''

			(Most of this is from a Talk page, but I believe a record of this should exist elsewhere, as well.)

	(Also, I would ''like'' to expand on this later, but as editing Agora pages ''without'' javascript enabled in one's browser is problematic, I will have to leave this entry as it is, and incomplete.)		(Also, I would ''like'' to expand on this later, but as editing Agora pages ''without'' javascript enabled in one's browser is problematic, I will have to leave this entry as it is, and incomplete.)

	{{reflist}}::Now, I didn't ''have'' to give a reference here--it is just a ''courtesy'' to the reader, in case he wants to see the context of my words. Without the reference, he can just assume that, yes, indeed, some conversation took place somewhere on a Talk page which involved something that Enochian said. Giving the reference ''does not'' make my statements more "truthful" or "accurate" etc. [[User:User4\|User4]] ([[User talk:User4\|talk]]) 01:27, 4 May 2016 (UTC)		{{reflist}}::Now, I didn't ''have'' to give a reference here--it is just a ''courtesy'' to the reader, in case he wants to see the context of my words. Without the reference, he can just assume that, yes, indeed, some conversation took place somewhere on a Talk page which involved something that Enochian said. Giving the reference ''does not'' make my statements more "truthful" or "accurate" etc. [[User:User4\|User4]] ([[User talk:User4\|talk]]) 01:27, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

User4: /* A note on "citations" and "references" */

2016-05-04T01:30:50Z

A note on "citations" and "references"

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:30, 4 May 2016
Line 4:		Line 4:

	Here's another citation:		Here's another citation:
	* "The Earth is flat,"		* "The Earth is flat."
	:(2012 address made by the President of the Flat Earth Society, etc. etc..)		:(Reference: A 2012 address made by the President of the Flat Earth Society, etc. etc..)

	Is the Earth ''really flat'' just because I gave a "correct citation"?		Is the Earth ''really flat'' just because I gave a "correct citation"?

	The ''second'' reason citations are given is to allow the reader to himself check whatever ''supporting evidence'' may exist (from scientific studies, etc.) for some statement made. But if some "study" is ''faulty'', then that study may support a statement ''which is may be a completely false statement''.		The ''second'' reason citations are given is to allow the reader to himself check whatever ''supporting evidence'' may exist (from scientific studies, etc.) for some statement made. But if some "study" is ''faulty'', then that study may support a statement ''which may be a completely false statement''.

	Then again, I can make a statement that is absolutely true, ''without'' giving a citation to some "scientific study," etc. to try to "prove" anything. Here is such a statement:		Then again, I can make a statement that is absolutely true, ''without'' giving a citation to some "scientific study," etc. to try to "prove" anything. Here is such a statement:

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:56, 4 May 2016
Line 55:		Line 55:
	::See, there is ''not'' just ''one correct category'' for each article. There can be ''many correct categories'' for each article. '''''The inclusion of ''categories'' is so that the interests of ''the reader'' are accommodated.''''' It is ''not'' about "putting things in the one right category". Don't you see what I am saying? Haven't you looked at how ''other wikis'' categorize articles? [[User:User4\|User4]] ([[User talk:User4\|talk]]) 18:40, 4 May 2016 (UTC)</blockquote>		::See, there is ''not'' just ''one correct category'' for each article. There can be ''many correct categories'' for each article. '''''The inclusion of ''categories'' is so that the interests of ''the reader'' are accommodated.''''' It is ''not'' about "putting things in the one right category". Don't you see what I am saying? Haven't you looked at how ''other wikis'' categorize articles? [[User:User4\|User4]] ([[User talk:User4\|talk]]) 18:40, 4 May 2016 (UTC)</blockquote>
	::I honestly do not know how to explain to you that personal antidotes and personal expirance does not constitute an encyclopedic article. Technical writing is different from creative writing. I have chosen not to disallow this type of writing altogether as Wikipedia and the French BoyWiki has done because I feel it has a place under [[:Category:Life]] and to a lessor extent under [[:Category:Entertainment]], which I believe was also the original intentions of the creators of BoyWiki.--[[Etenne]] [[File:BLSmileyface.png\|50 px\|link=Etenne]] 19:15, 4 May 2016 (UTC)		::I honestly do not know how to explain to you that personal antidotes and personal expirance does not constitute an encyclopedic article. Technical writing is different from creative writing. I have chosen not to disallow this type of writing altogether as Wikipedia and the French BoyWiki has done because I feel it has a place under [[:Category:Life]] and to a lessor extent under [[:Category:Entertainment]], which I believe was also the original intentions of the creators of BoyWiki.--[[Etenne]] [[File:BLSmileyface.png\|50 px\|link=Etenne]] 19:15, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
			:
			:::'''''I''''' honestly do not know how to explain to '''''you''''' the absurdity of anyone, especially one who is the editor of a wiki--and is involved in personally editing and classifying the articles as well, and one who states that he wishes the articles to be ''academic'' in nature, making the following statement, ''"I honestly do not know how to explain to you that personal antidotes and personal expirance does not constitute an encyclopedic article."'' [[User:User4\|User4]] ([[User talk:User4\|talk]]) 19:56, 4 May 2016 (UTC)