User talk:Hínandil

Messaging

Hi Hinandil! hi dude-how do we send messages to each other? thanks

We just do it this way, by ading to someone's talk page, or for private messages, use email. Also, sign your messages with ~~~~ so I know who you are without checking the history page!  :) --Hínandil 21:20, 15 Apr 2005 (EDT)

Where to send a bibliography

Dave Riegel has offered his Excel-formatted bibliography of boylove references for publication under FDL, but isn't sure if it would be appropriate for BoyWiki. Would it be possible for him to send it to you by e-mail? I don't have any e-mail accounts capable of receiving large attachments. See also Dave Riegel's bibliography license offer. --Foo 09:58, 13 February 2006 (EST)

The file itself would be inappropriate, but the information inside would be perfect for an article about Dave Riegel. Some one would have to type out the data into text format manually. A spreadsheet file shouldn't be too large for email. He could certainly send it to me at hinandil@freespirits.org or boywiki@freespirits.org, and I could import it with OpenOffice. If he wishes to send it to me, he'll have to zip it and rename the file extention to something else so it isn't blocked. I like to use .notazip, some of my colleagues prefer the more boring .zzip --Hínandil 12:56, 13 February 2006 (EST)

This post seems to suggest that neither the original, nor any derivatives of Dave Riegel's bibliography can be posted to BoyWiki under the topic Dave Riegel. While this may be consistent with the particulars of how the text would be published on BoyWiki, I cannot see it as consistent with the FDL, since it would represent an additional restriction not allowed under FDL, as you point out in followups to the cited post. While copyright law excludes facts from copyright, it is unclear that all aspects of what Dave has said is a very large file of references would be free from copyright. Rather than working from Dave's bibliography, I may instead look over my own reference lists to see if there is anything worthwhile that might be added to BoyWiki. Meanwhile, I can hold on to the file Dave sent in hopes that this issue may be resolved. --Foo 16:53, 14 February 2006 (EST)

This is a result of a misunderstanding just what it is that Dave Riegel sent you. I'm a bit embarrassed over it, but there's nothing to be done about that. It is better to be safe than sorry. Take a couple days to find out what Dave sent and how he wants it used. Let's make sure he understands what the GFDL means and that he has no problems with it, so you don't waste time working on a document you may not be able to submit. I really, really appreciate your patience and your dedication to making sure everything is done properly. --Hínandil 17:13, 14 February 2006 (EST)

Your response was very helpful, and may have prevented worse. I have my own lists of references compiled from visits to libraries and on-line research, including a few of the works Dave Riegel has discussed publicly. Perhaps in time, his bibliography can be more properly incorporated from the Excel file, but at least for now, I do not want to risk the addition of further 'requirements' being added after a page based on his spreadsheet has been created. Perhaps if BoyWiki's own bibliography becomes extensive enough, Dave will be inclined to add entries of his own at some point. --Foo 18:14, 14 February 2006 (EST)

Article comments

I modified the Category:Personal_experiences (for some reason I can't WikiLink it) page. I shuddered at the wording "experiences that are endured by BoyLovers and Boys in life."

Endured? Ouch. I personally would enjoy enduring a few more years with my boy.  :-) Cale Tucker 27 July 2005 00:35 (EDT)

Yeah, I was thinking to have a counterbalance between both good and bad experiences, but that's not really how it came out, was it? I'm rather happy with your change. It also flows a lot better. --Hínandil 27 July 2005 01:09 (EDT)

Thanks for the welcome

Thanks for the welcome! I haven't been in SQR chat (or at BLN, for that matter) for a couple of months now, so that may be why you haven't seen me there. --Asch 22:11, 10 September 2005 (EDT)

Request for Requests for deletion

I would like to see a Requests for deletion page. The first two pages to go there would be Category:Computers and Category:People. (And how come those links don't work from here?)

Things have seemed a little quiet lately. Soon we will cross the 100-article mark. How about a little celebration to attract attention and contributors?
— Asch ^{talk to me} 21:30, 16 October 2005 (EDT)

Hmm, that sounds like fun. The downtime and reduced system load have kept us preoccupied, and we're expecting at least another week before everything's back to normal. Maybe that should hold off until after some of the back-end is more stable. --Hínandil 22:48, 16 October 2005 (EDT)

Sounds like a plan. I'm looking forward to it! Good luck on the technical issues, and keep up the good work.
— Asch ^{talk to me} 19:26, 17 October 2005 (EDT)

So now we have 2,143 articles. How about that celebration? ;)
— Asch ^{talk to me} 23:56, 2 November 2005 (EST)

Hehe, we need some good evangelism and a celebration is in order! I'm waiting for the new server to be built first because there may be some hiccups again during the transition. Hopefully next week! --Hínandil 14:03, 3 November 2005 (EST)

Could you delete Flyboy? I created a redirect to his user page, before I remembered that doing so prevents him from showing up in Wanted pages, risking that he never gets an encyclopedic article! :O
— Asch ^{talk to me} 19:00, 27 February 2006 (EST)

Done and done. --Hínandil 19:08, 27 February 2006 (EST)

Moving pages

Hello,

First of all, let me apologize for entering this in your user page, when it certainly belongs in a general discussion forum for BoyWiki, but I could not find such a forum here. (Admittedly, I had a hard time finding the Village Pump in w:en before I remembered its name...)

Due to my pedantry regarding compounded adjectives and nouns, I have noticed that BoyWiki currently lacks the infrastructure for moving pages; namely,

• a "move" tab alongside "edit" and "history"
• instructions for doing so (Moving pages on Wikipedia)
• a move template (w:en:Template:Move)
• a "requested moves" page (w:en:WP:RM)

I would make these (except the first one) myself, but I figured it would be best to ask the Curators first, seeing as the changes are structural. (As you can probably tell, I still wish I could pledge the time necessary for becoming a Curator. :/ )

Thanks for your (and the other Curators') hard work, and keep it up. --Asch 01:09, 11 September 2005 (EDT)

Asch, this is something that is very important which is not yet in place. Only Curators and Scribes have the ability to move/rename pages at the present time. It was assumed that any page which needed moved would be caught by a Curator or that a user could run and find a Curator or Scribe. I think it's important to implement more a more formal structure so that we are prepared before we grow too large for the informal one. Instructions for moving pages are covered in the Curator and Scribe handbooks, so I think a page to deal with this and a template would be the only things needed. I prefer things to be written from scratch, not duplicated from Wikipedia, so I will try and devote some time to creating these next week. --Hínandil 18:01, 17 September 2005 (EDT)

Thanks

Thanks for starting this wiki! Honestly, I think of this wiki, and the one at childlover.org as being the wings of the childlove movement. There's a critical mass of writers in the boylove and girlove internet bulletin boards, who really would adore the opportunity to come and share their thoughts here, where the social environment won't be polluted by immature and disrespectful interjections.

I suggested a wiki several months ago, in a conversation at boychat.org with the keepers of the pedophilia.info website... The conversation we had is here: http://boychat.org/messages/873604.htm

I'm glad someone took up the agenda.--Marc 14:09, 16 September 2005 (EDT)

I hadn't seen that thread. It was interesting. I think it will take a little bit of time before visitors get used to the idea of editing on a wiki, but once that happens the potential is vast. Hopefully this site will help document the history of the boylove community as well as become a more general information resource. I think the potential for more permanent, involved discussions on different issues is very exciting. I'm glad you joined us. --Hínandil 18:01, 17 September 2005 (EDT)

Wow

I was looking forward to contributing a lot of information -- and perhaps money -- to this project. But since it seems such a big deal has been made out of my adding a user page for Jimf3, I think I will not tarry here any longer. Other, more hospitable places await me.

By the way, I have added very simple user pages for people on other wikis (and they have for me) without any administrator or user bitching. As long as it's not vandalism, it is commonly understood throughout the wiki world to be a courtesy. Pindar 10:26, 19 September 2005 (EDT)

It was a simple request and not, I think, an unreasonable one. You are at your leisure to come and go here as you will. --Hínandil 11:50, 19 September 2005 (EDT)

Another goodbye - at least for now

Hinandil, I honestly don't think I will invest time here, contributing to this wiki, in the near future. What happened over at the boylover.net article was very interesting. The way all of you boychat.org people aligned yourselves in that discussion, showed me something about how you feel about new people here, sharing their thoughts. I am a writer; I can't have my hands tied when I'm writing. And I know you haven't seen what I write, so you might be concerned about that. Hmmm...

There's something which sadly happens at boychat too often - and that is hostility games against those who either seem like trolls, or who ask questions that are considered dangerous to answer.

All the boards are going a lot more smoothly these days, and boychat.org is no exception... So I wonder, if the sentiment which was going on, before I entered the conversation was a new form of hostility game against other forms of boylove bulletin boards. Look at this: http://www.boywiki.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:BoyLover.net&oldid=3634

It's just a visceral attitude, that leaves me shaking my head - and, frankly, it makes me worried.

You are the owner of this board, and I respect that. I am always very careful to guage the response of the admins and management, of any bulletin board which I am newly posting at. I am there, only at that person's whim. That person can rewrite my words - that person can boot me. And, if I feel that the powers that be, are reacting towards me in a way that illustrates that I would have to feel as if my hands were tied, and I couldn't express my love for writing, in the way I would want to, then I make my exit.

Some of this is intuition, hmmmm. But, once there's a conversation which could be construed to be a confrontation of some nature, then that will be used in the future as political leverage against me. I don't consider our interaction over there the other day a confrontation, but I'm sure that others did.

Furthermore, boylover.net has been my internet home for a few years now, and if there's a point of contention there where someone understands where I come from, and he wants to harp on that, in some sense, in the future - even in subtle needling - that becomes an intolerable social situation for me. Respect is all important to me. And respect of those who I associate with is also important to me.

I wish you well in your wiki. I think that because the social parameters are different here than at a bulletin board, your experience here will be miraculous.

With a self moderating wiki - it will be a lot easier to keep peace, than it is on any bulletin board which requires administrators to do that. That healthy social environment will draw a lot of skilled writers, I'm sure. Marc 22:23, 23 September 2005 (EDT)

I'm not sure why you feel that the assertion of one user that BL.net is unsafe (for verifiable reasons which he stated) was a game of hostility. The article needed rewritten, and I removed that user's comments as inappropriate and he put them right back in after me. I am a BoyWiki person, not a BoyChat person, and my duty is to the truth. What you removed as an "untrue rumor" about server seizure was not hearsay but based on statements made at BoyChat by BL.net admin. So it cannot be dismissed out of hand because simply because it is now unpopular. In an encyclopedic article here, you are bound by evidence like anyone else.

At the moment, most of our active contributors are BoyChat posters. They cannot be faulted for bringing a BoyChat perspective with them anymore than you can for bringing a BL.net perspective with you. In order for BoyWiki to become the balanced source it wishes to be, BL.net users cannot say "Well, BL.net isn't represented on BoyWiki so we'll all stay away." They must become active here and work alongside the other communities that contribute. This is not a BoyChat opinion site, no matter what the BCers think, but as an administrator, it was not my job to change the article as long as users were discussing what to do with it.

So, I am sorry you are leaving, because BoyWiki will be that much poorer for it. This resource cannot overcome a problem of bias by administrative decision, or it would not be biased at all. We are at the mercy of our users in that regard. I hope you return some day. --Hínandil 23:41, 23 September 2005 (EDT)

Strange categorization at Allen Ginsberg

At Allen Ginsberg the categorization code seems to be behaving badly, showing History twice. Or did I goof during my burst of categorical inspiration? Hmm, maybe I shouldn't have put Famous boylovers under People while keeping it under History. Please enlighten me.
— Asch ^{talk to me} 22:17, 13 October 2005 (EDT)

On second thought I'd better put a more permanent solution into place. I assume the wiki code isn't made for categories to have multiple parents, so I'll rather make a category for famous nonboylovers under History, though I'll call it Famous people since we really can't know whether they were BLs or not, can we? Please delete Category:People.
— Asch ^{talk to me} 22:36, 13 October 2005 (EDT)

Ack! Allan Ginsberg is still behaving badly. I'd better not touch anything.
— Asch ^{talk to me} 22:40, 13 October 2005 (EDT)

I am not sure that I like putting Henry de Montherlant not into Encyclopedia but far away under the famous boylovers and entertainment: literature categories. As a writer he deserves to be subject of an encyclopedia article proper as opposed of an entertainment one, I'm afraid. Peter 09:20, 23 October 2005 (EDT)

He is in "Famous boylovers" which is an encyclopedia category as well as "Literature" which is an entertainment category (which is our current name for the 'arts and media' articles). --Hínandil 16:16, 23 October 2005 (EDT)

Possible data loss

As you have noticed, strange and very long codes have been appearing in place of legitimate edits in more-or-less random places. They replaced comments in Glossary, <nowiki> data in Help:Editing and something else in Help:Preferences. I am wondering if we don't have a bit of data loss after all. Any clue?
— Asch ^{talk to me} 21:01, 19 November 2005 (EST)

Another thing that seems to have disappeared in the crash is the CSS class for styling certain boxes, as in Template:Fledgling, BoyLover.net, and BoyWiki.
— Asch ^{talk to me} 22:05, 19 November 2005 (EST)

I'm not sure about the codes replacing HTML comments. As far as the CSS classes disappearing, it seems that the custom interface messages are going out somewhat intermittently. They always come back, and that is when you will see the classes disappear (since the CSS definitions are part of the customization in the MediaWiki namespace). --Hínandil 14:21, 21 November 2005 (EST)

Abrupt article-count drop

Sometime within the last few days, the article count dropped from a hundred-something to 76. What's up?
— Asch ^{talk to me} 19:46, 18 December 2005 (EST)

That's a good question. I'll have to look into that in the next day or two. There's probably a good maintenance script that'll fix that right up! --Hínandil 04:29, 19 December 2005 (EST)

I believe this might have something to do with the recent bot attack. Atom had to delete several dozens of articles and edits generated by robots. Still young 11:42, 19 December 2005 (EST)

Atom and Sentinel merely reverted articles in the same manner any other user would. It was I who deleted the revisions. The bots did not create new articles but merely defaced existing ones. --Hínandil 13:34, 19 December 2005 (EST)

It looks that the bots did it again. The count has dropped to zero in several articles that have been vandalized. Any ideas to solve this? Kes 20:30, 29 July 2006 (EST)

Yes, every article that was sanitized had the view counter reset. The solution is that I wrote down the counter for all 95 affected articles before I sanitized them, and at some point in the next week I get to poke the database manually to reset them. I'm hoping I can talk the Security Team into cooking something up at sometime in the future.  ;) Thanks for the heads-up. --Hínandil 02:35, 30 July 2006 (EST)

Unnamed links

MediaWiki enumerates so-called 'unnamed' external links with a vaguely-standard notation. An example is this[1], this[2], or this[3]. I referred to these as 'anonymous' links in a commit comment this morning because Wikipedia was down for about 3 minutes, making it impossible to divine their particular idiosyncratic usage. (C calls unnamed structs 'anonymous', etc.) I hope this clarifies my meaning. --Foo 16:19, 13 January 2006 (EST)

My sole concern is that on a BL resource, an "anonymous" link is only really going to be understood by the average user as a link which protects the identity of the user clicking on it via proxification or redirect to wipe the HTTP-referrer data or some other magic. This needed to be refuted for security. By all means feel free to change the interwiki links back to external URLs, as long as you don't refer to them as "anonymous" ones in the edit summary. --Hínandil 16:30, 13 January 2006 (EST)

The current links are somewhat of an improvement informationally. My concern is that appending unadorned alphanumeric text to a word or sentence can hinder legibility. Would it be possible to surround unnamed BC links with brackets? --Foo 16:48, 13 January 2006 (EST)

Yes, feel free to add brackets or parentheses around the links, such as ([[BC:xxxxx]]). --Hínandil 17:16, 13 January 2006 (EST)

Incidentally, why aren't external links referer-wiped? --Foo 16:51, 13 January 2006 (EST)

External links aren't referrer-wiped because it was believed that hacking support into MediaWiki for the dereferrer script provided by Free Spirits was prohibitively complex. It was eventually decided that we had an obligation to make external links obvious, but that it was up to our users to make a decision whether or not to visit and how to protect his privacy.

This doesn't mean we won't start referrer-wiping in the future, but the MediaWiki wikitext parser is fragile and altering it is non-trivial. --Hínandil 17:16, 13 January 2006 (EST)

New sigpic policy article

Please review BoyWiki:Sigpics, as it touches on BoyWiki policy.

It's good to be back and see all the new material!
— Asch ^{talk to me} 18:05, 8 February 2006 (EST)

main page typo

section 1.1 has "consititional." Sorry, I can't fix it. :P --Afin 16:01, 29 July 2006 (EST)

Actually, you're a Scribe and can fix it, hehe. :P Thanks for the notice! --Hínandil 02:32, 30 July 2006 (EST)

Sign up Problem

I have noticed that the required anti-spam pic is not appearing on the create new account area. It appears like it's going to load but then vanishes. --Fleetwood 09:43, 7 February 2007 (GMT)

Thanks, Fleetwood. I'll have someone look into it. In the meantime, new users should email boywiki@freespirits.org to sign up. --Hínandil 15:09, 7 February 2007 (GMT)