Talk:Etenne

Subpages

• Talk:Etenne/subpage1

---

---

To all users

It would be a good idea to review this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view

In short, the neutrality of point of view leads to an objective, "scientific" discourse, whereas non-neutrality leads to one-sided views and propaganda.

An important point is perhaps to understand that specific sympathies are not incompatible with a neutral point of view: you can like a country, a person, an amorous preference, and nevertheless be able of an objective discourse about it.

Only objectivity is credible. That's why it is vital for BoyWiki. We don't "promote", we explain and illustrate. --Etenne (talk) 12:25, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

---

---

Please ask yourself before hitting the post button

1. Dose this have a cultural or historical relavance to boylove?
2. By posting this are you going to make Etenne lose sleep?

Scribunto

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 MediaWiki.org 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 sysops only, 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)

Categories

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: https://www.boywiki.org/en/USER4/DRAFT/Pedophile_Wikipedia_article_criticism 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)

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)

Categorization

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: http://www.arte-sana.com/articles/rape_statutes.pdf 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)

To all BoyWiki users:Naming

The convention for naming pages is that articles should be singular whereas categories should be plural.

• Names of topics and topic categories should be singular, normally corresponding to the name of a BoyWiki. article. Examples: "Law" (which represents a body of knowledge), "France", "George W. Bush".

• Names of set categories should be plural. Examples: "Writers", "Villages in Poland".

However, I am willing to hear counter arguments to this practice or suggestions before deciding what the policy should be --Etenne (talk) 13:17, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Just yesterday I noticed that Wikipedia has categories with a singular title, e.g. wikipedia:Category:Vagina. Also, there are some plural article titles, e.g.wikipedia:Jews. Lysander (talk) 15:13, 25 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)