Talk:Etenne

Wikibooks

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

I don't have any problems whith the content being added to wikibooks however I would not want you to do all that work for something that just gets deleted.--Etenne (talk) 13:55, 25 October 2014 (CEST)

I think what I'll do instead is narrow my focus to child pornography. I'll work on the book in userspace here, and then copy and paste it over to Wikibooks when it's in decent shape. Leucosticte (talk) 23:41, 28 October 2014 (CET)

Wikis

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

I suppose you could always add other Wikis to Childwiki in the same way you would add a different language wiki and sort of have a Childlove hub:) Or are you thinking about renaming it to something more encompassing? BTW, your server runs kind of slow. Also can it be accessed using https?--Etenne (talk) 21:46, 7 November 2014 (CET)

Yeah, I use DreamHost, and even though I have a VPS, object caching isn't available. I don't have https; I guess I'd need to buy an IP address for that. I could probably get a better hosting solution from some other company; I just use DreamHost to avoid censorship.

I could name it something more encompassing but the problem with "YouthWiki" is that people might assume that excludes prepubescents, since the youth rights movement typically has only focused on adolescents. Leucosticte (talk) 22:39, 7 November 2014 (CET)

I don't have any ideas for names off the top of my head right now but perhaps you could make a post to GirlChat and they could come up with something. (as well as perhaps attract some users:) --Etenne (talk) 14:15, 8 November 2014 (CET)

I notice that efforts to create and sustain a reasonably large, active GirlWiki failed miserably. The BLs are putting the GLs to shame, as usual. :) 1,000+ articles is pretty good for a non-WMF wiki. Leucosticte (talk) 19:48, 8 November 2014 (CET)

Thanks for the compliments but I feel we can do better:) Plus many of those pages are related to the calender template and chronology. However, I am not dissatisfied with the progress we have been making. I would guess that the difference comes from Boylove having a longer history than girllove in that up until quite recently, girllove was perhaps considered a normal variant of heterosexuality whereas pederasty has almost always been considered as exotic.--Etenne (talk) 21:05, 8 November 2014 (CET)

Server

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

I will look into it. Email me @ etenne@boywiki.org

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

WikiIndex

WikiIndex deleted the articles on BoyWiki, ChildWiki, Newgon Wiki, and ChildPorn.info, among other wikis. See http://wikiindex.org/WikiIndex_talk:Community_portal#We_need_to_have_a_community_discussion_about_Nathania.2FNathan_Larson.2FUser:Leucosticte . It seems to me that most wikis that don't have a strong, benevolent dictator end up going down the path WikiIndex is going. They start out being tolerant and inclusive, and then a new cadre of sysops comes into power, after the old guard has left, and sweeps away the users and content that are considered undesirable. One of the sysops there, Hoof Hearted, who had for a long time been the most active user on the wiki, had defended me and my content in the past, but I think his health has been suffering or he's otherwise been less active than before. He hasn't edited in months.

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

Not surprising. Even if they wanted to be more open, it's easy to give in to the pressure since they really don't have a horse in this race. It is easy to turn your head and not see what is right before your eyes.... at least until General Patton comes along and makes you take a walk through the death camps and bury the bodies  :) --Etenne (talk) 23:40, 22 November 2014 (CET)

So, those who don't have a horse in the race don't care, and therefore give in to whatever side makes the most fuss or threatens to make them look bad; and those who do have a horse in the race are considered disqualified from voicing their opinion because they're a bunch of dirty pedophiles with a conflict of interest in the matter. On the other hand, if those who make their living prosecuting child porn offenses, providing government- and defendant-funded treatment to the "victims", and so on, voice their opinions, it's assumed that their motives are pure. Nice. Leucosticte (talk) 01:00, 23 November 2014 (CET)

Someone recently wrote, "Sites that discuss the normalization of child porn and pedophilia are fine in a neutral context, but they tilt heavily in the interest of illegal acts when they start arguing for it, and since I don't believe it is ethically or legally sensible to provide links to sites that argue for the incitement of criminal acts minus any caveats about exercising legal restraint, and having seen BoyWiki and Newgon Wiki, they are only concerned with help pedophiles hide themselves from the law, which is why I would oppose them without question." Leucosticte (talk) 18:51, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Someone should inform this guy that simply existing and being a pedophile is not against any law. Of course, I would like to challenge this person as to exactly which entry/entries it is talking about since I do not see anything on BoyWiki beyond basic internet security which is a good idea for everyone. I suppose that as long as no one fact-checks his lies that he is good. --Etenne (talk) 12:01, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Quora

I got this message on Quora today:

“

Hello You are being blocked for one month because your questions, in aggregate, are creating a hostile pattern of content that many users are reporting as harassing and hostile to certain groups of people. These are the type of questions which are considered problematic: - Does the illegal possession and distribution of child pornography encourage people to abuse children so they can create porn for others' use? - If you're an adult, is it illegal to, via the Internet, ask a minor you met online to meet you somewhere, if you don't make any suggestions or proposals of a sexual nature? Quora is very committed to ensuring it is a safe and welcoming place for all good contributors and we require that users are judicious when asking questions that could be perceived as sexist, racist or harmful to minors. Quora Admin

”

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

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

Do you think that continuing to have a page about them on BoyWiki is desirable given the circumstances? --Etenne (talk) 13:30, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

As criticism, maybe. Kinda like how Evil-Unveiled had pages about BoyWiki and its users, for purposes of criticism. Leucosticte (talk) 21:01, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Book

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

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

Leucosticte's e-mail

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

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

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

For example, this is a good page: http://web.archive.org/web/20131006162550/http://agetaboo.org/ and this, too: http://web.archive.org/web/20131006162550/http://agetaboo.org/info/attraction.htm

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

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

Newly added articles

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

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

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

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

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

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

You mean something like Special:NewPages? Leucosticte (talk) 08:37, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

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

A "Newly Added Pages" link on the main page

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

Already there See: From BoyWiki's new and recently improved articles:

Template:Did you know Leucosticte (talk) 20:54, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Feel free to add it as a task over at Phabricator. Leucosticte (talk) 10:40, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

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

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

No, I am not sure how you would go about doing that. --Etenne (talk) 05:43, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I bet Leucosticte knows how. User4 (talk) 05:48, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I note that a search for the term "literature" has the same problem. No option in given for viewing the category, or searching among all entries. User4 (talk) 05:48, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia example: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=boozing&title=Special%3ASearch&fulltext=Search states the page exists, but gives the search results in addition.

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

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

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

Wikipedia has this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Redirect

Maybe the relevant section is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Redirect#Soft_redirects

A "double soft search redirect" could probably be easily hacked to do what I am suggesting ::https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Double_soft_redirect

Here is some code on redirects:

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

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

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

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

https://www.boywiki.org/en/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&search=%3Fbooks&go=Go

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

Wikipedia's category:Pederastic films

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Pederastic_films has a few we don't have. And perhaps their articles are superior to ours for the ones we do have (I don't have time to check them all)? User4 (talk) 05:53, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Imports

Hi Etenne, I recommend doing an Special:Import of this file. For more info on this process, see mediawikiwiki:Manual:Import. Thanks. Leucosticte (talk) 05:51, 1 March 2015 (UTC)