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?

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)

You can't figure out what those two (obvious, at least, to me) errors are due to? Uh... You certainly make up in glibness what you lack in perspicacity. User4 (talk) 02:37, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Enlighten me. Lysander (talk) 03:16, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Hey! You didn't enlighten me about what those two errors are due to. Lysander (talk) 04:10, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

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

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

• User4 (talk) 19:15, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

It's not that... just like you, I have been very busy in the last few days and I don't see it getting any better for at least a week. Plus with my recent health problems, it's not been a fun time for me. One of the BoyWiki admins just pointed out to me that on fr.boywiki there are a few entries on Japan that could be translated and added... which he feels are better qulity then what we have now... how's your french? :)

• --Etenne (talk) 19:26, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I have a way with languages... part of my "magic" you might say... Links, please? (I hope the articles are not very long... I'd really like to finish some other stuff I'm in the middle of)...

• User4 (talk) 20:12, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

• https://www.boywiki.org/fr/Japon
• https://www.boywiki.org/fr/Chigo
• https://www.boywiki.org/fr/Chigo_monogatari
• https://www.boywiki.org/fr/Wakashudō

The Japan article is in your hands now, at least for the magic that you can do that I don't know how to. I won't touch it until you finish fixing what you can, OK?

• User4 (talk) 20:59, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Happy now? Do I get a cookie for being a good boy?

• User4 (talk) 21:30, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it looks like I am going to be in Japan for a few days to correct the code and then I need to go back and read the original French and correct some of the translation errors. And to be quite frank, my French is getting a bit rusty as I don't use it as much as I should. --Etenne (talk) 10:43, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

You may want to open each of the following URLs in a separate browser tab, along with the English BoyWiki Japan page in another for editing. If you want, I can fix the translation errors -- I may be faster at fixing them than you (or you may be faster at that than I am -- I don't really know).

• https://www.boywiki.org/fr/Japon
• https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=1&hl=en&ie=UTF8&prev=_t&rurl=translate.google.com&sl=fr&tl=en&u=https://www.boywiki.org/fr/Japon&usg=ALkJrhi_j-slEgWDmbCf0mGFbVM4XQEH-A
• User4 (talk) 12:46, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

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

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

https://www.boywiki.org/en/User:Lysander/EmailAllChanges

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

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

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

Here's an example:

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

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

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

• https://www.boywiki.org/en/Sociogenesis

Sociogenesis or Sociogenesis

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

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

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

Yes, it's a serious problem, if Wikipedia is harvesting the IP addresses of those following embedded links. If you take BW offline, edit the exported .XML file of the entire site, then import it, you could fix the problem in an hour or two instead of taking days.

• User4 (talk) 02:59, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Etenne, when it comes to security for Internet users, either something is a serious problem that must be addressed or it is not a problem. There is nothing in-between.

Either we take all possible steps to stop Wikipedia (and other sites) from detecting that the visitor to their site has clicked a link in a BoyWiki article, and prevent them from IP address harvesting, or else we don't worry about it at all. There is no "middle ground" on this.

So, which is it?

• User4 (talk) 04:42, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

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

I believe the modifications that Lysander has made to Template:W are sufficient to solve the problem. People can now see that it is an external link and can make a choice as to whether they want to click on it or not. Again, I want to stress that the use of this template within a paragraph text is not the best editing practice and I would give preference to making internal links or if necessary use [1] or make the link a reference. --Etenne (talk) 10:20, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

I notice too, from this page, that it's the browser that sends the HTTP referer header. So the user can set up their browser to not send these headers even if we don't use rel=noreferrer. It's also possible to use this hack. By the way, interwiki links on most wikis are a slightly different color than regular wikilinks, so I wonder if BoyWiki has a non-standard setup with regard to that? There might be a way to fix that issue, e.g. by changing the CSS. Lysander (talk) 20:04, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

A few interesting graphic files you may want to use on BW are at commons.wikimedia.org

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Pederasty

• User4 (talk) 01:46, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

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

• Pederasty in Ancient Greece

Sourced from World Heritage Encyclopedia™ licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0

Help to improve this article, make contributions at the Citational Source

3365380

• Seems high quality
• Seems unbiased
• Seems "open source" (creative commons) and therefore quotable.

http://self.gutenberg.org/articles/Pederasty_in_ancient_Greece

• User4 (talk) 02:44, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

I got a little farther and I saw this :(

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

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

• User4 (talk) 02:56, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

• User4 (talk) 12:25, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

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

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

• User4 (talk) 00:17, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

• User4 (talk) 12:02, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

I have told you what I can either you accept that or you don't. Somethings don't need to be made public.

• --Etenne (talk) 12:22, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

You don't have to be so hard on people all the time. If you do, they won't cooperate with you. And if they don't cooperate with you, you are left with an impossible task - that of fixing everything that needs fixing at BoyWiki all by yourself.

So, which do you think is better (and easier) for both you and for BoyWiki? To "lighten up" (which seems somewhat difficult for you to do) or to try to accomplish an impossible task, one that you can never ever finish all by yourself?

• User4 (talk) 12:56, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

I personally would prefer to have maximal transparency, except where it's necessary keep information private to shield BoyWiki and its members from attacks by the state. Lysander (talk) 19:11, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Categorization

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

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

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

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

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

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

• User4 (talk) 12:46, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Making more use of the Agora

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

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

BoyChat message for you re: ancient Greek

http://boychat.org/messages/1435590.htmUser4 (talk) 12:15, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

What do they call "essays" in newspapers?

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

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

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

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

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

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

But better than that, I'd ask an experienced, intelligent person how he would find those old sites. He would probably then do a 20-minute search and come up with a site like this one, http://web.archive.org/web/19970620073530/http://mavrickbbs.com/cranch/swer2.htm , which has a huge list of old BoyLove sites. Some of the links on that page even lead to archived copies of those BoyLove sites themselves!

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

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

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